Instigator / Pro
2
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic

God has no gender (For RM in particular but will accept another user)

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
0
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...

RationalMadman
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
7
1646
rating
305
debates
66.89%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con won in definitions - pro intended the debate to be unwinnable by arguing gender means sex, con argued gender means the general interpretation of gender as defined.

On this count, despite pros rant that he doesn’t care what gender means according time the dictionary, he did little to change the debate away from pros characterization. As a result, con characterized gender to his advantage and wins the debate.

The two ancilliary points to raise based on pros argument: are that gender is a social construct, so no one can truly have it. This smacks of grasping at straws here - and pro refutes himself twice: first by arguing “no one has gender - other than....” the other than is important as it means that pro agrees that there is a way for God to have Gender; second by admitting that we monkeys appear Gods gender. Both would appear to negate the resolution in the way pro presents gender.

Pro also shoots himself in the foot by admitting that the meaning of the word has been redefined - implying the meaning has changed.

Pro has to offer a clear definition of gender, and a clear argument for why God - namely RMs God doesn’t have a Gender. Pro doesn’t really do either, which means con wins this.

Sources:

Con wins on sources here, as he hammers down pros argument with each successive definition. These sources build his definition into a broad and authoritative definition that was next to impossible for pro to challenge. Pro was playing catch up, with him being unable to produce any sources that appeared to bolster his warrant. Whilst con offered multiple dictarkomary definitions, pros only relevant argument that utilized a source was his definition of gender incorporating sex, which required a broad and overtly favourable interpretation to mean what pro claims it does - as a result, con hardened his position immensely with sources, and pros sources made almost no difference to hisnwarrant.

Sources to con