Instigator / Pro
16
1472
rating
32
debates
48.44%
won
Topic
#4446

There exists, 2 genders only, in the human race.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

YouFound_Lxam
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
15
1524
rating
53
debates
75.47%
won
Description

I will not be providing the definition of gender to this debate, because that is basically what the whole debate is about. If I were to provide a definition with only male and female, then I would be biased in the definitions and vice versa. But I will add:

Gender: Is in fact a social construct.

Basically, that is all there is to it.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

PRO starts out with a very weak effort:

Refuses to define his central term (because most standard dictionaries disprove PRO's claim outright).
Primary argument is childishly oversimple.

AP1: Gender is a social construct
AP2: All social constructs are based on something real
AC1: Gender must be based on something real

BP1: Gender is only based on sex
BP2: Sex is binary
CP2: Therefore, gender is binary

I think CON could have won this debate by using any widely accepted definition of GENDER and demonstrating PRO's lack of understanding of that term. CON undermines their own argument by buying into the controversy and accepting the majority burden of proof. Still, CON devastates PRO's argument by citing NPR's usage guide asserting three sexes and at least three genders and explaining that social constructs vary by society and time. PRO's AP2, BP1, and BP2 are all authoritatively falsified here. CON wastes time definiting EXISTENCE- notoriously difficult to define and there's much simpler ways of disproving that social constructs are always based on something real: Monarchies are social constructs asserting that some humans are chosen by the gods to rule. America is founded on the notion that not all social constructs are real. CON then gives 8 examples of current social constructs recognized by some societies (I would have like to have seen heavy citation here: really demonstrate that these constructs have currency in modern psychological, medical, scientific thinking. CON rebuttals are rather muddled. CON really needed to defend the current state of the social construct in modern science. Statements like "as long as someone claims it, it exists" undermines the shared understanding of social construct and does not help the case.

In R2, PRO accepts CON's definition of gender as " The individual is themselves choose their gender identity." Poor grammar aside, PRO's acceptance of GENDER as rooted in self-indentity necessarily sets the reality of sex in favor of perception, even unprovable self-perceptions. PRO really kills his argument in R2 by providing a list of social constructs, all of which he claims have an objective reality but many of which are generally accepted as NOT based on any objective reality: beauty, intelligence, race, etc. PRO demands a description of all the genders CON has listed and CON wins this debate by providing mainstream, objective definitions to which PRO barely responds and offers absolute zero expert thinking in contradiction.

R3 continues essentially the same- PRO asserts his own biased reality as truth without presenting scientific evidence, CON is more in touch with mainstream thinking but is too ethereal: a few concise statements establishing that social constructs need not be based in reality would have effectively killed PRO's case in a few short statements.

ARGUMENT to CON.

SOURCES easily to go CON for using objective sources to define a number of terms, particularly defining genders. PRO really needed to come back with sources just as objective that refuted CON's authorities confirming many shades of gender. Instead, PRO offers mere opinion, without any acknowledgement or rebuttal to society's current, popular usage the notion of gender.

Legibility could stand improvement on both sides, conduct ok.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Great debate, guys.

So this is basically a discussion over semantics. Over whose interpretation of the meaning of the word ‘gender’ is more valid.

Pro essentially made a slight improvement on this subject. In our previous debate, Pro’s position is gender is NOT a social construct.

Pro wisely doesn’t define the term ‘gender’ in the description because most dictionary definitions have updated to a more leftist variation that would make the discussion impossible to have from Pro’s end. Now Pro could have used a more traditional definition, but I imagine nobody would have accepted as Con because the discussion would be impossible to argue from their end, unless they used a Kritik.

Okay, so fundamentally. Pro admits gender is a social construct, but they state that gender is binary. (Male or female.) Pro’s reasoning for this is that for gender (or social constructs) to exist, they must follow an objective framework or gender identity is meaningless. Pro acknowledges while gender and biological sex are not synonymous, they are not entirely distinct either. ‘Man’ and ‘woman’ are based on the biological sexes ‘male’ and ‘female.’ Since the other genders are not based on any biological sexes, they don’t exist.

Con shoots themself in the foot by mentioning they have the BOP, undermining what the word ‘exists’ means by claiming gender exists several times but then saying it’s a matter of perception or exists in the mind. It’s not that I object to their argument defending subjectivity, but their side is too inconsistent with this bounce and forth by arguing something is objective versus subjective.
Con contradicts themselves here.:

1. “ There is a huge misconception between sex and gender. Though I already knew this would occur, my first contention already follows up.
Gender is, I repeat, not based on biological sex. ”

2. “Cisgender is going based on your biological sex, you identify as that.”

The way me and Con would argue this subject is similar, but different at the same time. A more consistent argument would be to specify a little earlier that Cisgender is based on biological sex, but other genders don’t have to be. Where Con does a good job is listing multiple genders and sourcing them with verified dictionary definitions.

However, it would be better if Con pushed back and challenged Pro a little more on their usage of “based on” instead of strawmanning Pro in the parts of gender and biological sex being the same.

The conduct by Con got a little cocky passive-aggressive with these comments.:

1. “No, I won't ask for you to vote for me quite yet. It's only the second round, nothings completely set in stone. Don't want to be overconfident, now do we?”

2. “Cool, we have a definition. Let's put it simpler.“

But Pro’s mockery brought it back in the middle, making the misconduct even and proportional on both sides.:

1. “What? I am sorry to the people judging but I have to laugh at this.
This is an argument about Gender, and Con is considering the possibility that it doesn't exist?“

I give Pro the point for arguments. Conduct is a tie. Both sides had great sources, consistent spelling & grammar, so it’s a tie on the rest.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

There are essentially two debates being had here: (1) whether sex is binary, and (2) whether gender is based on sex. Pro needs to win both of these to win the debate. I think both sides represented their position well, though it felt like they were talking past each other for the most part. Hence, this debate was very close.

(1)
This one is essentially both sides going back and forth with sources. Con drops this and then comes back at the end with a source defining intersex as a "sex." I'll give this to Pro, because the debate initially seems to be about whether sexes can be classified as binary—Pro shows that they can, based on ability to impregnate. Essentially, "With some research, every single person born with the intersex condition can be tied back to 1 biological sex, no matter how screwed up they are." Both sides offer definitions, but I think Pro provided more in the way of arguments. Con largely sidesteps Pro's argument in the final round with a new source; hence, I'm more inclined to lean toward Pro's line of reasoning.

(2)
Pro argues that a social construct must be based upon something in reality. Con says it doesn't. At the end, I think Pro wins this by a small margin. Although Con describes gender as "how you feel", they never really explain what these feelings are—which feelings correspond to which gender? So in the end, Con's definitions are largely circular. Both sides seem to accept that gender must be "real," so I have to give this to Pro if Con is only providing circular definitions.