All trans people are dillusional
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
As trans people, I define those who have undergone or want to undergo a "gender transition surgery", use or want to use hormones to alter their physical appearance to resemble more a person of the opposite sex and people who "feel" as a person of the opposite gender.
Very good round, I vote Con, here's why:
1. I buy that delusion and disillusion are the same. Con bringing this difference up in the last speech is too late for me to fairly count it and bad faith engagement with a non-native English speaker who clarified a mistake. I hate the concept of conduct points, but this is one of the few rounds that makes me consider its value, however, it isn't in this round.
2. I buy that Pro defined delusional (I'm going to use this, but it is interchangeable with dillusional) from the first speech as anyone who believes a lie. Con's attempt to shift the definition in the last speech is too late and I don't weigh it.
3. I buy that the definition of trans is any of the three points (surgery, hormones, desire) and not all of the three points. The grammatical examples that Con gives and the fact that Pro didn't answer with a defintional clarification from Round 2 makes me buy Con's use of only one at a time.
4. For all of the historical examples of Native Americans and this one trans man from Spain in the 16th century or 17th century, they're all delusional. This is never answered except through the creation of a new definition that I don't buy.
5. I buy the resolution doesn't define a time and that Pro must define that all technologies that could be possible would still make trans people delusional. The resolution, textually, doesn't define a time. Pro says that their case implies the present, but Con is right that they get to make a wide array of arguments.
6. I also buy that future tech could allow trans people to become fully the other gender, making them not delusional.
7. I buy that, simply wanting to be more like a woman is not delusional, but this isn't feeling like a woman, so it doesn't meet the definition anyways.
8. I buy that wanting to do gender transition surgery for fun does not make you delusional but makes you trans under the definitions as I've accepted them from the beginning.
9. I buy that all means that one example of a non-delusional trans person counts as a Con vote.
In conclusion, even if all the historical versions are delusional, and therefore reaffirm Pro's case, the possibility of future tech that allows for non-delusional trans people and the possibility of someone who wants gender transition surgery without the desire to be a "real" person of the other gender means that Pro does not meet the burden of all.
Notes for Pro
1. Clarify that "and" in the definition of trans means all three simultaneously earlier than the third round. You're using to answer arguments that Con made in Round 1, so you should be saying it in Round 2.
2. The "does future tech count" debate is lazy on both sides. You're saying we shouldn't assume and Con is saying that we should take the resolution and description at face value. You should be impacting out what happens to debates if the Con can shift time frames on fact/value debates. Namely, no debate to find truth ever can be winnable by Pro because they can't account for the future with full certainty. This makes the debate impossible, and should be rejected for a more fair debate. If you say that, Con is in a lot harder position.
3. You use sex and gender interchangeably, and while Con didn't engage in good faith on this point, the basis of queer/gender theory is that gender is the social construction of sex and sex is physical genitalia. If you have this debate again against someone who understands transgenderism, they'll press you on that.
Notes for Con
1. It's really bad ethos to be doing so much debate and language work on a non-native English speaker. It worked for you in this round, but if you had pulled this shit on me (I'm a native English speaker, so I wouldn't ever have this ground, buy hypothetically), I would immediately say that you deserve to be voted down for challenging my definition that was correct by your own admission and is your attempt to make the space inaccessible for non-native English speakers.
2. On the time debate, it's very lazy and you only win because you are right that the resolution doesn't have an explicit timeframe. You should impact out the idea of "assumptions" and say this allows the Pro to shift the debate infinitely making it impossible to be Con. This makes it more cut and dry.
3. Why didn't you get into the meat of the gender/sex split? I feel like have that substance is good to heg your bets in case you are debating someone who is a lot better at the resolutional proof debate.
If yall have any questions or comments, feel free to reach out!
I cannot believe that Pro ruined his argument in the final round after the domination. Still reeling from it.
RfD:
https://youtu.be/3LOCSIt351E
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gjrxJZ1IBjMR89Nvzgfds5OJsRUgwbG0vmAwHxPlOTU/edit?usp=sharing
Once Again, I deserve the increment of points because people voted for me. Does it change anything? Probably no. Does it make me feel angry? Possibly yes.
thanks
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm
Also this happens when you create a Universe that has quantum fluctuations.
1) If you can provide a source, I might change my mind.
2) this "may" is key here nonetheless.
3) too small sample nonetheless
4) even if all this is true, it still is true that the vast majority of trans individuals are so due to
a) being mentally ill
b) having suffered trauma
c) being "trendy", yes that is a thing.
YET it doesn't disprove my case, even if it were true. You CAN'T actually change your sex, no matter what you do and there is no need for you to try to change your physical appearance (SEX) to reflect more of your mental state. I mean, it is paradoxical that the same people who cry that it is different (sex and gender), change one to match the other...
QUESTION: What did I do to prove I'm a bad Christian?
QUESTION: When did I disagree with you? I absolutely agree.
NOTE: There are varying degress of faith, I just recently got involved with religion, previous agnostic.
NOTE: Relax, I'm 14 and people like you paint a bad picture of faithful individiuals. Respectfully.
Actually there is. Some of the first biological evidence of the incongruence transgender individuals experience, because their brain indicates they are one sex and their body another, may have been found in estrogen receptor pathways in the brain of 30 transgender individuals.
"Twenty-one variants in 19 genes have been found in estrogen signaling pathways of the brain critical to establishing whether the brain is masculine or feminine," says Dr. J. Graham Theisen, obstetrician/gynecologist and National Institutes of Health Women's Reproductive Health Research Scholar at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University.
Basically -- and perhaps counterintuitively -- these genes are primarily involved in estrogen's critical sprinkling of the brain right before or after birth, which is essential to masculinization of the brain.
Variants investigators identified may mean that in natal males (people whose birth sex is male) this critical estrogen exposure doesn't happen or the pathway is altered so the brain does not get masculinized. In natal females, it may mean that estrogen exposure happens when it normally wouldn't, leading to masculinization.
Both could result in an incongruence between a person's internal gender and their external sex. The negative emotional experience associated with this incongruence is called gender dysphoria.
There is something in the brain that determines SEXUAL ORIENTATION. It is perfectly natural to be gay, although rarer.
There is no scientific proof that (Sexual identity) transgenderism/gender dysphoria is attributable to biology, although it can be attributed to mental illness.
In the birthing process, a medical professional will declare your baby a boy or a girl based on their sexual organs — but does this determine their gender?
“We’re trying to change the understanding of gender,” says psychiatrist Murat Altinay, MD. “That’s one of my big goals. The main question I’m asking is, ‘Where is the gender?’”
We know that as an embryo forms, the genitalia specializes into either male or female. But what about development in the brain?
“The brain and the body can go in different directions,” Dr. Altinay says. “Gender is not only in our genitalia; there’s something in the brain that determines gender.”
.
Decisively_Conservatist,
Your Bible ignorance forgot to say that all ungodly "Trannys" should respect what Jesus, as God, gave their gender to them at birth, and that they are NOT to change it in any way whatsoever!
"But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." (1 Corinthians 6:17-20)
I really hate dumbfounded pseudo-christians like you. :(
.
1) In case you can change your vote, I believe you have to do it for the following reasons;
@AleutianTexan
1) In the resolution, I said trans people ARE delusional. I didn't say that trans people WILL BE delusional.
2) In ally my syllogisms and further arguments I used present tenses ONLY.
All these, if not providing a rock solid time framework, at least VERY VERY HEAVILY imply it.
Finally, the fact that con had to turn to arguments based around the time the debate is happening, it is only fair to say that I my arguments couldn't be disproven by them. Doesn't that make my case superior and am I not worth an extra point?
Is my vote any different than your vote? I can't watch the video right now, I'm in class.
Voted!
https://imgur.com/a/5wdZt0M
I got confused sorry
Wrong, he meant "disillusioned".
I will say that it's obvious in context he meant delusional so I wouldn't dock him points for that
your opponents first language isn't English either, so good luck getting voters to care. You guys are on equal ground.
*Vote pro*.
THE REST OF THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO INFLUENCE THE VOTING PROCESS, JUST MY AFTERTHOUGHTS.
--------------
First of all,
I SAID that english ain't my first language and I'm pracitsing it. So, by delusional AND dillusional I imagined they both meant "believe in a lie".
AGAIN, since con doesn't have any argument and refers to technicalities and word mistakes in my part, I WOULD BE forced to surrender.
Also, con said that there is NO way for me to prove, even in the PRESENT, that gender transition surgeries can't actually change ones gender and brings up the multiverse as an example. Well, in ORDER to PROVE or DISPROVE something, it has to exist. As we know of, the multiverse does not exist, nor does the future (yet). From what we DO know of, NO gender transition surgery can change a person's gender/sex.
Finally, the point con made about nordic countries and how my definition's parameters could be examined independently, I have to say this.
Nordic countries and trans people is is NO way the same or a similar example.
A more close example to the case of being trans would be;
To be human, you have to possess human dna AND be of the nature to produce a gamete AND have 46 chromosomes AND have one heart etc.
If you were a being with all the above but with 30 chromosomes, you would not be human.
May vote on this in the coming days
Well, the suicide rates are really high.