Instigator
Points: 6

Men and women are a different type of organism from each other.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Sparrow
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Science
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
Points: 4
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
In biology, an organism (from Greek: ὀργανισμός, organismos) is any individual entity that exhibits the properties of life. It is a synonym for "life form".
Definition of type
 (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : a particular kind, class, or group
b : something distinguishable as a variety :
c : a member of an indicated class or variety of people
d : a typical and often superior specimen
e : qualities common to a number of individuals that distinguish them as an identifiable class: such as
(1) : the morphological, physiological, or ecological characters by which relationship between organisms may be recognized
(2) : the form common to all instances of a linguistic element

It is a scientific fact that male and female are two different types of organism, because they are distinguished by gender/sex and thus can be categorized as such. Therefore I win.
Published:
--

Ethics of Semantic-Technicality Angling against a Resolution

Con stands here, ready to take the only way that this debate can be won; semantic technicality. Con is not the villain preying on an innocent victim who made this debate intending to genuinely debate whether or not men and women are different or any sort of sexism whatsoever. The aim is to bait people who are LGBT-friendly (especially T-friendly) to accept the debate.

Transgender people come from all walks of life. We are dads and moms, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. We are your coworkers, and your neighbors. We are 7-year-old children and 70-year-old grandparents. We are a diverse community, representing all racial and ethnic backgrounds, as well as faith backgrounds.
idly. According to a 2016 survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, commissioned by the Human Rights Campaign, 35 percent of likely voters in the United States “personally know or work with someone who is transgender.” That's more than double the 17 percent who answered yes when asked the same question in 2014.

Other research13 suggests that there are at least 700,000 transgender people in the United States, about 0.3 percent of the total population and about 3.5 percent of the LGBTQ community; but these estimates are likely conservative because of the limited amount of studies that have attempted to measure the transgender population.

  • 1,13

This community is the one that any empathisers with and/or members of were the intended victims of an unwinnable trap that Pro intended to semantically blackmail them into (as proven by the very strategy and simplistic angling of Pro’s R1 definition against definition.

Con is not the villain, but our hero in taking Pro on in this way. Any who were thinking to vote against Con on conduct for ‘trolling semantics’ should strongly consider who is the actual villain in this debate; the one who made what they thought was semantically infallible or the one who creatively decimated the trap from the inside-out by the very semantic technicalities that Pro relies on.

--

Syllogisms, semantics and supreme strategy

Note: For the sake of this debate ‘men and women’ being used in the archaic meaning of biological sex. This is not about trolling lgbt, this is how pro has clearly ended up wording it.

Syllgowhatism?
A syllogism is a systematic representation of a single logical inference. It has three parts: a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The parts are defined this way:

  • The major premise contains a term from the predicate of the conclusion
  • The minor premise contains a term from the subject of the conclusion
  • The conclusion combines major and minor premise with a “therefore” symbol (∴)
When all the premises are true and the syllogism is correctly constructed, a syllogism is an ironclad logical argument.
  • 2
{
Syl1: Men and women are not a type of anything.

Syl1.0:
Major Premise: The XX vs XY Chromosome configuration of biological males and biological females is one of a multitude of factors into a person’s genetic build.3,4,5,6
Minor Premise: Men and women can differ from others of the same biological sex in up to, but usually much less than, 45 ways (46 - 1 chromosome), directly equal in severity to the difference of the XX vs XY chromosome.4,5
Men and Women are as different from those in their own gender as from one another.

Syl1.1:
Minor Premise: [Using Venn Diagram logic]7 To be a type of something, there must be a defining feature amongst the type that outweighs in similarity what is different between those within it.14
Minor Premise: Men and Women are, at least scientifically in potential, as different from those in their own biological sex as from one another.[Syl1.0]
Men and Women are not a type of anything.
}

{
Syl2: ‘Organism’ is not something that ‘men’ and ‘women’ can be grouped into.

2.0:
Major Premise: If something is a plural of a singular, it is not able to be a singular as if there’s only one, it is mutually exclusively singular as opposed to plural.8,9,10
Minor Premise: Men and women are plural forms of singular organisms.11,12
‘Men’ and ‘Women’ can only be grouped into forms of a pluralised term.

2.1:
Major Premise: ‘Men’ and ‘Women’ can only be grouped into forms of a pluralised term.[Syl2.0]
Minor Premise: ‘Organism’ is a singular term. 11,12
∴ ‘Organism’ is not something that ‘men’ and ‘women’ can be grouped into.
}

--

Pro’s own definition and source support Syl2.1’s Major Premise. Pro has no paths left to win the debate and should concede gracefully.

--

Leading on from Syl2’s interpretation of sources 8, 9 and 10, it follows that men and women are not ‘a different type’ to later say ‘from each other’ but must be instead ‘different types’ making the resolution semantically impossible to uphold even in its very wording formation itself as it’s an incoherent statement.

--

Sources - :
[1] Human Rights Campaign. (n.d.). Understanding the Transgender Community. [online] Available at: https://www.hrc.org/resources/understanding-the-transgender-community [Accessed 27 Apr. 2019].
[2] Philosophy Terms. (n.d.). Syllogism. [online] Available at: https://philosophyterms.com/syllogism/ [Accessed 27 Apr. 2019].
[3] Szalay, J. (2017). Chromosomes: Definition & Structure. [online] Live Science. Available at: https://www.livescience.com/27248-chromosomes.html [Accessed 27 Apr. 2019].
[4] University of Leicester. (n.d.). DNA, Genes and Chromosomes. [online] Available at: https://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/vgec/schoolsandcolleges/topics/dnageneschromosomes [Accessed 27 Apr. 2019].
[6] Stonestreet, E. (2016). What makes a person a person?. [online] Learn Liberty. Available at: https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/what-makes-a-person-a-person/ [Accessed 27 Apr. 2019].
[7] Gonzales, K. (n.d.). What Are Venn Diagrams in Math?. [online] Study.com. Available at: https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-are-venn-diagrams-in-math-history-types-examples.html [Accessed 27 Apr. 2019].
[8] Collins English Dictionary. (2019). Plural definition and meaning. [online] Available at: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/plural [Accessed 27 Apr. 2019].
[9] Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2019). Plural. [online] Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/plural [Accessed 27 Apr. 2019].
[10] GrammarBook.com. (n.d.). Subject-Verb Agreement | Grammar Rules. [online] Available at: https://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/subjectVerbAgree.asp [Accessed 27 Apr. 2019].
[11] Merriam-Webster English Dictionary. (2019). Definition of ORGANISM. [online] Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organism [Accessed 27 Apr. 2019].
[12] Cambridge English Dictionary. (2019). ORGANISM | meaning. [online] Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/organism [Accessed 27 Apr. 2019].
[13] J. Gates, G. (2011). How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender?. [online] The Williams Institute. Available at: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf [Accessed 27 Apr. 2019].
[14] Cambridge English Dictionary. (2019). TYPE | meaning. [online] Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/type [Accessed 27 Apr. 2019].

Round 2
Published:
So first let's make one thing clear, I never excluded transgender people from this or made any statement about whether they can truly be called "men" or "women". I am indifferent to this in the context of this debate because either way it is still a type-classification pertaining to an organism of a different gender and/or sex. Con's attempt to paint this debate as a hero-villain dynamic and his insinuation that I am trying to attack the LGBT community is quite frankly deceptive and childish.

For the sake of this debate ‘men and women’ being used in the archaic meaning of biological sex.
There is nothing "archaic" about it, that is what the terms commonly refer to. Your words ooze with accusation and false moral superiority.

Syl1: Men and women are not a type of anything.
They are a type of gender/sex which is distinct and are classified into different types, most notably male and female AKA men and women.

Syl1.0:
Major Premise: The XX vs XY Chromosome configuration of biological males and biological females is one of a multitude of factors into a person’s genetic build.3,4,5,6
Minor Premise: Men and women can differ from others of the same biological sex in up to, but usually much less than, 45 ways (46 - 1 chromosome), directly equal in severity to the difference of the XX vs XY chromosome.4,5
Men and Women are as different from those in their own gender as from one another.
This holds no relevance since it's a given there are many types other than merely gender at play. There are people with blue eyes and people with brown eyes for instance, and a million other things differentiating people. To say this means that people can't be classified as different types of genders is absurd. If merely one factor such as gender is invalid merely because there are a million other ways people can be distinct genetically, then all other differences would also cancel each other out because they are equally if not more insignificant on their own. You are basically saying that because people are different in so many ways they are all actually the same type of thing in every way. Crazy right?

Syl1.1:
Minor Premise: [Using Venn Diagram logic]7 To be a type of something, there must be a defining feature amongst the type that outweighs in similarity what is different between those within it.14
Minor Premise: Men and Women are, at least scientifically in potential, as different from those in their own biological sex as from one another.[Syl1.0]
Men and Women are not a type of anything.
What differentiates a cheeseburger and a bacon cheeseburger? Whether it has bacon. It can be the same in every way, but adding bacon changes what type of burger it is. Using this simple example I have extinguished your puny Minor premise. I shall now conquer the whole galaxy BWAHAHAHA sorry got carried away.

yl2: ‘Organism’ is not something that ‘men’ and ‘women’ can be grouped into.

2.0:
Major Premise: If something is a plural of a singular, it is not able to be a singular as if there’s only one, it is mutually exclusively singular as opposed to plural.8,9,10
Minor Premise: Men and women are plural forms of singular organisms.11,12
‘Men’ and ‘Women’ can only be grouped into forms of a pluralised term.
To be honest, this is gibberish to me and I'm not touching it with a 40 foot pole. All I got from that was that if something is one of  something it can't be a different type of the same thing, which is stupid. If I have plural bacon cheeseburgers and plural cheeseburgers, they are both a singular type of food but they are two different types of it. There can be sub-types of another type such as "hominid" "homo sapien" and "mammal" etc.

2.1:
Major Premise: ‘Men’ and ‘Women’ can only be grouped into forms of a pluralised term.[Syl2.0]
Minor Premise: ‘Organism’ is a singular term. 11,12
∴ ‘Organism’ is not something that ‘men’ and ‘women’ can be grouped into.
}
Xbox and PS are both video game consoles, so there can't be different types of models, and they can't be different types of brands right? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, totally. Yeah, you're totally heroically destroying the basic facts about reality, whatever is such a vile villain as myself to do? Now I'll never get away with my vicious attacks upon the LGBT community which I carried out by claiming "men" and "women" refer to two different types of gender.


Published:
Correction to Con's R1:
Pro's definition of Organism supports the minor, not the major, premise of Syl2.1

The key to comprehending Syl1 concept of chromosomes and variation in the species is very key and important (among the ton of other ways one can differ from others, which is in Source 6):

In the United States, individualism is a pervasive way of thinking about individuality and hence personhood. From thinkers like Kant and others in the Enlightenment, we got the idea that persons are little atoms, autonomous and independent, interacting with one another largely on the basis of self-interest. We don’t owe other folks much besides staying out of their business.

But in recent decades, some philosophers have pointed out that this vision of individuality is limited to a segment of the population in the prime of life. For significant periods of our lives, we are utterly dependent on others; and even when we are not so dependent, we often have others depending on us. The fully autonomous adult unencumbered by demands from others is much rarer than our intellectual inheritance has led us to believe.

Don’t get me wrong. We owe a great deal to the Enlightenment and individualism. But as with all ideas, we must not overextend individualism in contexts where it loses its utility. Personhood is one such area.

If individualism is an inadequate basis for personhood, we might seek the basis in its opposite, which we might call relationism. Just as being a rational creature puts us in the business of giving and receiving reasons, being a relational creature puts us in the business of forging and improving relations with others.

Even the relatively autonomous are interdependent with others — for instance for income, and for physical and psychological well-being. If respect and space are the way to honor a rational being, then attentiveness, trust, care, and love are the way to honor a relational one.

Conceiving of persons as relational doesn’t cancel out the need to recognize and respect our rational nature, or to give people room for autonomy; instead, it broadens the space in which we think about persons while acknowledging that reason is a big part of who many of us are. If we think of identity as growing from the way we inhabit our intersecting roles and relationships, we can see that the relational conception of persons includes the rational one while preserving the individuality at the heart of personhood.

There is still a great deal to work out in this vision of personhood, but you can probably see already how the idea promises to account for the personhood of children and those with mental disabilities better than the individualistic, reason-based idea will.

Children and the mentally disabled may not be (fully) rational, but they can certainly be fully relational. We owe them recognition in virtue of their individuality. For most strangers most of the time, this is just basic respect and staying out of their business.

But for others, like children and the mentally disabled — like Carla — much more is required. It is required by their personhood.
6

The rest of Syl1 is understood by noting that due to there being 45 other chromosomes than the XX/XY one, to potentially vary in, it is physically probable that constant variation between the 'many of a man in men' and 'many of a woman in women' being as severe and frequent as the variation in biological sex itself.

People can vary immensely from one another inside of the supposed 'types' in the same severity as the very similarity between those of the supposed type. This disqualifies the 'men' and the 'women' of being a unified 'type'. This is semantically irrefutable due to science and what personhood is as individuals. You can argue they are a 'type encasing many types' but that is where Syl2 and the extended understanding of grammar and plurals matters most.

Pro made a resolution to debate that he/she/they assumed to be unwinnable for Con. It was worded craftily to bait users who may believe it was a debate from a right-wing conservative's sexist point of view. This is why I justified myself against the accusation of poor conduct as a villain. The resolution is made most severely to trigger pro-trans people and was nothing other than an exploitative trap. The problem is then, that a superior trap was formed due to semantic impossibilities of the resolution being upheld.

Men are not 'a different type' you could not say 'cheeseburgers are a different type' you must absolutely say either:
  • 'the/a cheeseburger is a different type'
  • 'cheeseburgers are different types'
These are the only two possible configurations of the statement with regards to the formatting of the debate's title/resolution. Thus, If man vs men is equivalent to cheeseburger vs cheeseburgers, grammatically speaking, then it follows that the resolution is impossible to uphold. The same 'a different type' is applied to women.


Syl2 also hit brutally home the fact that even the definition of Pro's 'organism' in Round 1 says 'individual'. This means that since men and women both are plurals, they can't be types of organism but instead must be types of organisms.
Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
Pro has given up.
Added:
Am I the only one who may or may not have misread the title?
#16
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments, 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
#15
Added:
If they're different organisms, how can they fuck and make kids?
#14
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
good vote.
#13
Added:
"I feel con missed the boat here by relying on obtuse and largely nonsensical semantic attacks; whilst pro added a very sensible sounding and intuitive argument about types. Con didn’t address the details of pros analysis here, or refute the key aspects of type pro raised in his first and second rounds."
Is identical to my reasoning in that debate he had vs Type1. I actually think he lost that debate.
Contender
#12
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Please counter shutus votebomb here.
Contender
#11
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Concession
>Reason for Mod Action: As far as I can tell, no one conceded.
************************************************************************
#10
Added:
"Technically, every kind of organism is a different type than every other organism, because type can be defined by a single difference"
Exactly, that's why I literally win just by starting this debate and having someone accept it.
"but in the context of the debate, that's not what you're implying."
Yes it is, I am arguing that since men and women are two different types of people based on their gender, they are a different type of organism as in they are organisms and belong to two different types of gender.
Instigator
#9
Added:
--> @Sparrow
Technically, every kind of organism is a different type than every other organism, because type can be defined by a single difference. I am a "different type" of organism from every other human because I am me, but in the context of the debate, that's not what you're implying.
#8
Added:
Organisms can be classified into gender types therefor I am winning this debate. It's elementary really.
Instigator
#7
Added:
--> @Sparrow
One word: hermaphrodites. People can be born with both sexual organs.
#6
Added:
"Men and women are a different type of organism from each other."
I'm sorry, but this is kind of a stupid topic for an argument. Each species is just seperated into two genders based off of the amount of X and Y chromosomes. It doesn't nessecarily mean that men and women are different organisms.
#5
Added:
"Pro's source supports 2.1's major premise"
minor not major*****
Contender
#4
Added:
If all rounds are as brief as Sparrow's opening argument I'll vote. However, I feel like a 30 000 character opening argument from the Madman is on its way, have fun debating this topic Sparrow
#3
Added:
--> @Sparrow
I am going to try and semantically out-troll this tautology. Good luck.
Contender
#2
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to con for the forfeit.
Arguments:
This is really just a semantic argument surrounding “type”, pro controlled this discussion with his example of cheeseburgers and bacon cheeseburger, and types of game console. This builds upon his opening round where he claims we are all organisms, and as male and female have different defining traits - and thus different types.
Cons argument was frankly absurd, he argues Firstly that men and women are not a type of anything - and that men and women can’t be grouped as organisms.
Cons 1.2 had promise; but his argument became that as all males and all females are different - they cannot be considered a type. Which to me makes little sense intuitively - how can I exclude them being a type when con himself is creating a category for them by using the specific names. Cons 2 also had promise, but he became fixated with grammar and pluralization rather than arguing the more obvious claim that organisms don’t apply to gender.
I feel con missed the boat here by relying on obtuse and largely nonsensical semantic attacks; whilst pro added a very sensible sounding and intuitive argument about types. Con didn’t address the details of pros analysis here, or refute the key aspects of type pro raised in his first and second rounds.
As a result: arguments to pro.
What’s absurd here, is that I feel con could have trivially won this debate by saying something along the following lines:
“Cheeseburgers and bacon cheeseburgers are a different type of burger, but not a different type of food.”
“By pros logic my properties and aspects change day to day and thus I am a different organism than yesterday, this clearly isn’t intuitive”
And many other variations.