Instigator / Pro
28
1589
rating
18
debates
69.44%
won
Topic
#3894

Gender Affirming Therapy Is Dangerous

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
0
Better legibility
4
0
Better conduct
4
0

After 4 votes and with 28 points ahead, the winner is...

Public-Choice
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1483
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Description

STANCES:

PRO shall only argue that Gender Affirming Therapy is Dangerous

CON shall only argue that Gender Affirming Therapy is NOT Dangerous

* * *

DEFINITIONS:

All terms shall first be defined from MedicineNet's Medical Dictionary available here:
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/alphaidx.asp?p=a_dict

And if MedicineNet's Medical Dictionary cannot provide a definition, then Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary available at merriam-webster.com will be used for all other words.

Specific definitions for debate:

Gender Affirming Therapy: the process of making a transgender individual identify with their personal belief about their gender, including surgery, medication, psychotherapy, and any other forms of counseling.

Transgender: a person who does not identify with their biological sex.

Dangerous: hazardous to personal health.

* * *

RULES:
1. Burden of Proof is shared.
2. No Kritiks
3. No trolls
4. Forfeiting one round = auto-loss.

-->
@Lemming

That's the only way one could argue a topic like this. The trouble with doing so is two-fold.

One, the way that Pro has defined "dangerous." If any gender affirming therapy is hazardous to personal health, then it doesn't matter if they better than the alternative. Pro affirms the resolution based on that definition regardless because the practice is still dangerous even if we deem it net beneficial. He had the opportunity to define dangerous differently in order to engage with the possibility that, if taken as a net value, gender affirming therapy is less dangerous than the alternative of doing nothing, though with this definition, that type of argument is effectively off topic. As written, the topic requires that Pro present what is dangerous in gender affirming therapy, and subsequently requires that Con prove that those dangers are nonexistent.

Two, Pro has also restricted the type of argumentation that can be had in this debate, stating that Pro may ONLY argue regarding the dangers of gender affirming therapy and Con may ONLY argue that those are not actually dangers. That means that he has actively disallowed, in the rules of this debate, the type of argument you're talking about. If Con argues that it is more dangerous for these people not to pursue gender affirming therapy, then Con is arguing outside of the bounds of their required stance, since that doesn't directly counter the existence of these dangers. Pro can and likely will argue that such arguments go against the rules of the debate. Even if he doesn't, many voters may note that rule and hold Con to it. At minimum, that means that Con would likely sacrifice the conduct point to simply make this argument, though many voters may simply disregard all arguments that stray outside of the stances laid out in the rules.

-->
@whiteflame

I did no such thing. Something is either dangerous or is not dangerous. Also, there is nothing in this debate saying a person cannot argue thresholds of dangerousness.

Because, technically speaking, breathing is dangerous in a city. But that is a really absurd take on breathing.

-->
@Public-Choice

If that was your aim, then you should have probably set the bar higher for yourself. As is, you’ve made it so that any arguments to that effect are extra topical - they’re not relevant to whether or not you win this debate because all you have to do to win is show that any of the procedures involved in gender affirming therapy are dangerous. Demonstrating that there’s nothing good about it is even outside the bounds of what you’ve allowed yourself to argue under “STANCES” unless it directly relates to what is dangerous.

Everything is dangerous. You can kill someone with an apple by smashing it over one's nape. Yet these greedy fruit companies are keep selling those damn apples, how dare they!

Everything is dangerous. You can kill someone with an apple by smashing it over one's nape. Yet these greedy fruit companies are keep selling those damn apples, how dare they!

There is nothing good about it. And that is what this debate will prove

JUST say sum like "the goods of Gender Affirming Therapy is better than the bads" so then Larney can accept. ( he still wont tho you watch )

Yeah… the way this is framed is, effectively, a truism. Since you’ve restricted all arguments to issues of whether or not any gender affirming practice is hazardous, you’re requiring your opponent to argue that any and all surgeries, procedures and medications associated with the practice present no hazards, which is impossible. Someone could argue that it’s worth the risk, but you’ve barred that argument from the debate.

> including surgery

Surgery is dangerous. Frequently less dangerous than the alternative, but still dangerous.