Wow, don't come starting with me now. I'm sure the mods disagreed when your vote was removed? So, yes, it was unreasonable. At least for this website in general. There's my proof.
If you read my entire thing, I said I skimmed and skipped. I didn't cry or whine over it, I just didn't care.
If anything, your acting like a child even commenting defensively on something that was in no way attacking you.
Personally, I skim votes. If I find it unreasonable, I'll skip it and move on. If in what I read seems elaborate I'll read it and use it as reference. Such as TWS1405_2 vote on my debate, it was unreasonable. I didn't report it, but I moved on and didn't comment. I wasn't gonna argue about something that really didn't factor into voting. (I already knew I lost, it would've been a bit different if it was mixed votes).
In his (pro's) defense, his arguments were good. All around it just needed some more elaboration, from both sides. If pro would've attacked con's main argument that "they behave more like cells" and correctly argued it, it would've been different. I would've voted for him if that was addressed more but he forfieted.
Not sure if it was just me that saw this in a different eye than everyone else that voted.
My bad, didn't see this until now. I will most likely be creating anything revolving around controversies with woman, controversial opinions about homosexuals and standardized testing.
Yes, I clearly misunderstood the definitions.
I believe my take on intent, is different in some cases. However, it still is with an intent.
With your definition, I can completely say, "I have the resolve to kill another because I got harassed". "I am determined to get rid of this child, because I do not want them." And if we go off terms of "morals" it is almost irrelevant, also being that we cannot possibly know somebodys mindset. That being said, i'm not only going into this with the (not) mom's mindset, but the doctors mindset. But it's all the same thing. "My job is to kill another because they got harassed", etc.
Think about it this way, someone bumped into me, I am determined to get revenge on their daughter. The one that is harmless, I am going off to hurt them with malice or in other words, 'criminal' intent.
With that out of the way, murder is a crime. And you are killing another being, therefore abortion is murder.
I'm not saying I won't take into consideration your comments / vote but i'm not going to fully or even mostly regard it either. I don't completely agree with your vote nor your opinion. I believe there is things unaddressed, but also to a degree unhelpful. I cannot even see how you awarded a certain point. But that's alright.. There were some things I saw that I could improve on from your vote and I will be using.
No, but you feel like a 0.2 verison of TWS1405_2 with that comment, lol.
But to be honest, usually their vote's are alright. In this case, you can report the vote. At least I think.
I take all comments and votes into consideration, and I will yours. though somethings mentioned in the comments are rather not criticizism but opinion based.
"No girl/woman ever desires (with intent) to have an abortion; there is no malice on her part."
This is false.
When you say intent, do I or do I not go , specifically to schedule an appointment of sorts to have an abortion done? I go to the doctor for the abortion. I have an intent to remove the person. Just because that person may have had thoughts not to, or the person (child) was 'thrown' on to them doesn't mean it wasn't with intent. I intend for the baby to get killed and removed. Yes, it intent.
I considered. However it would slightly be inefficient. Though it would help with their opinions, it doesn't completly help me ackknowledge about the opposing side. I would rather get into a debate already confident with the pros or cons about the opposing side. Further, it seems I only cover some issues rather than underlining the main or not quite known issues.
However, I'll consider a bit more and might try it out.
I want to do more research on my stronger opinions and constructing. Such as standerized testing, I will come back fully acknowledged on the pros and cons and recreate the debate. Then, i'll focus more on those opinions and constructing the correct frameworks.
I wasn't going to go through the statistics of "grass is..." or "touching is..", I didn't take this debate seriously in anyway. I wasn't going to provide defintions when this was a troll debate. I even showed a picture of grass LOL. That's my way of defining it. It was used in the context of "you don't know what grass looks like, so go ahead look at this picture and go outside and touch it".
If you're going far into the statistics, think about the entire thing revolving around touching grass. (Aka, it's translated to telling someone to go outside). This debate is giving "reasons" why someone needs to touch grass. Like being a discord moderator, you need to go outside, do something with your life, touch some grass. It's all the humor in it.
So, whatever you call my side of the debating is fine. I wasn't looking to impress with this.
I'm willing to accept this challenge if you make another or challenge me. I missed the opportunity as I was offline and would've took this position if I was online. If you want to debate me on this topic I am fine with that.
I might.. Might vote on this when it ends if I can find the time.
I was expecting a bit of a different response as I feel some arguments made no contraction except helping me better understand the opposing side.
I was referring to: "The conduct by Con got a little cocky passive-aggressive with these comments."
Mockery, cocky, passive-aggressive, eh. But alrighty.
It wasn't typical mockery. I only added it because, if you say "vote for x" in mid debate, how does that make the opposing side think? I'm fine if they win, sure, I never said I will win. Usually everyone puts "vote x" at the end of their debates. But win or not, this is how he voter feels. I could be right, and still be voted against (not saying I am or not right). So in the end, if I still feel I proved something that really, can't be completely argued against then I do. But showing completely "im going to win" 'in front of my face' was the plain mockery.
I would hope to keep this conversation up, but I have already stated it multiple times.
Gender is how you identify, social construct, how you choose to identify. Not your biological self. And ill keep defending that.
I simply won't (but I keep anyways) repeat this.
As for your questions, ill answer that. Everything else you say would just be me repeating the following above.
"1. If there's more than 2 genders, that applies to cows right? Can there can be a cow that's a third gender? If so, does the same logic apply to dogs and cats?"
In the mists of this debate, it says "human race", I wasnt commenting on animals.
Outside of that, I don't know. Can they speak human language? Do we know how they feel inside?
"2. Please explain how a human can identify as a cow? Are humans born with hooves?"
They just do, I really can't explain in any further detail because I don't identify as one.
As I repeat, it's how you feel inside. So, it doesn't matter if (biologically) you are human.
I state in the debate, Cisgender is a gender. Not female and male. Why did I say that?
Because, it is something that is parrel with your sex.
--
I feel the only way that this is denied is if you nitpick at the "well gender is not gender identity".
"What I am trying to say is that no matter what gender identity you put on someone, what they identify as will always be based upon the gender binary"
So, in my perspective, does ir matter? Because if you want to go that route, then still, these genders are genders. We can nitpick at the fact that gender doesn't mean gender identity all you want, but, if something is apart of gender then yes. It still can be considered their own gender.
Consider:
Biological female identifys as they/them. What is this then? What gender is this? Is this not a gender? If not a gender, what is it?
"Also making part 2 soon."
Yeah, as said, i'm good with that. I would prefer if it would be one week though. My schedule usually can't fit a three day debate.
That said, ill be focusing more on comments from this debate. If I can't prove it in a way that makes more sense for voters, ill change it. So, expect a slight difference.
Real quick, even if it is strongly held that it isn't, I still believe:
No, sex and gender aren't the same thing and that is a misconception. If you identify as a cow, heck, sure. Would your sex be biologically a cow though? No. They aren't the same. Pro confirms themselves, it is a social construct.
Definition of social construct: "A social construct is a concept that exists not in objective reality, but as a result of human interaction."
And you cannot compare someone trying to be like well, I know i'm black but I identify as white. Because, heres the problem. Race is not a social construct. It is biological. Gender is not biological.
And I will continue to stress this fact even if voters disagree or find it weak.
"Something interesting I have learned from you."
Alright, let's hear it.
"I don't know where you are basing your arguments off of, but I did learn something. You have a completely different perception of reality, and it doesn't align with......well reality.
From what I can tell, (correct me if I am wrong) your perception of reality is that the definition of gender is how someone identifies themselves based upon how they feel. You claim that you can't identify as a man or identify as a woman. You can only identify as "Cisgender" (strait) or any of the other gender identities like Non-Binary, and Trans-gender. This is what I am noticing you believe."
Summary: 1. I notice you believe that gender is something based on how you feel. 2. I also notice, you think you can't identify as a female or male, only Cisgender and other genders.
1. First off, yes you're correct from my perspective. It is something based on how you feel, but to an extent. Don't try to twist and turn the tables by saying "okay, I feel like a male", I see through that. It's just like saying, "I don't feel like either female or male", that is just the definition or base of your gender. That would mean your non-binary. Just my thought process.
2. Correct, my first comment explains a bit of relative information.
"Also, I am making a #2 to this debate as agreed."
I am fine with that, go ahead.
I thought I would comment this, there are exterior factore that the association can get paid.
Tickets, sponserships, merchandise, and through television. All of these are factors where "The NBA should be paid more than the WNBA" is a correct resolution. As a result, I just have to show why they need more revenue. Since they are lower in revnue, they need to sell (which in realty is paying the WNBA) more, so its possible. They should get paid more so they can arract more people.
These debates.. Are we playing devil advocate here? Or do you really believe such?
Sounds good.
To confirm, in my burden of proof, the roles are reversed. It was an accident created by my rush. I will correct it in round two.
My bad, I assumed being that I was mentioned and a few remarks. Nevermind.
I think your idea of criticizing is a bit different but it's alright. I wasn't completely concerned with it anyways.
Wow, don't come starting with me now. I'm sure the mods disagreed when your vote was removed? So, yes, it was unreasonable. At least for this website in general. There's my proof.
If you read my entire thing, I said I skimmed and skipped. I didn't cry or whine over it, I just didn't care.
If anything, your acting like a child even commenting defensively on something that was in no way attacking you.
Yeah. The vote was unnecessary.
Personally, I skim votes. If I find it unreasonable, I'll skip it and move on. If in what I read seems elaborate I'll read it and use it as reference. Such as TWS1405_2 vote on my debate, it was unreasonable. I didn't report it, but I moved on and didn't comment. I wasn't gonna argue about something that really didn't factor into voting. (I already knew I lost, it would've been a bit different if it was mixed votes).
Hah, I knew I wasn't the only one who thought ur vote was a little, um... lol. But thanks for the revote.
Hah, it's a person from a video game. Don't think i've mentioned anyone from a video game or anime, but good to know outside perspectives.
Now that I really look at the votes.. Should I be asking why you think I'm a weeb?
In his (pro's) defense, his arguments were good. All around it just needed some more elaboration, from both sides. If pro would've attacked con's main argument that "they behave more like cells" and correctly argued it, it would've been different. I would've voted for him if that was addressed more but he forfieted.
Not sure if it was just me that saw this in a different eye than everyone else that voted.
I never said, I was talking about you. But, at least you guessed it yourself.
Well.. These comments sure are just wonderful. Seems like a little someone is upset.
I'll vote on this after my own similar debate.
My bad, didn't see this until now. I will most likely be creating anything revolving around controversies with woman, controversial opinions about homosexuals and standardized testing.
Good luck.
I tried to warn you.
As con your arguing that it is murder. Is that what you want? Otherwise I would fix it.
Edit:
Nevermind. I guess your a pro-lifer now!
It's hard not to. The moment your first sentence began I remembered a previous conversation with him.
Yes, I clearly misunderstood the definitions.
I believe my take on intent, is different in some cases. However, it still is with an intent.
With your definition, I can completely say, "I have the resolve to kill another because I got harassed". "I am determined to get rid of this child, because I do not want them." And if we go off terms of "morals" it is almost irrelevant, also being that we cannot possibly know somebodys mindset. That being said, i'm not only going into this with the (not) mom's mindset, but the doctors mindset. But it's all the same thing. "My job is to kill another because they got harassed", etc.
Think about it this way, someone bumped into me, I am determined to get revenge on their daughter. The one that is harmless, I am going off to hurt them with malice or in other words, 'criminal' intent.
With that out of the way, murder is a crime. And you are killing another being, therefore abortion is murder.
I'm not saying I won't take into consideration your comments / vote but i'm not going to fully or even mostly regard it either. I don't completely agree with your vote nor your opinion. I believe there is things unaddressed, but also to a degree unhelpful. I cannot even see how you awarded a certain point. But that's alright.. There were some things I saw that I could improve on from your vote and I will be using.
Mhm.. I'll get to responding later, chill.
I agree with Savant. LOL.
This ^^^^
No, but you feel like a 0.2 verison of TWS1405_2 with that comment, lol.
But to be honest, usually their vote's are alright. In this case, you can report the vote. At least I think.
I take all comments and votes into consideration, and I will yours. though somethings mentioned in the comments are rather not criticizism but opinion based.
I'll be specifically responding to this:
"No girl/woman ever desires (with intent) to have an abortion; there is no malice on her part."
This is false.
When you say intent, do I or do I not go , specifically to schedule an appointment of sorts to have an abortion done? I go to the doctor for the abortion. I have an intent to remove the person. Just because that person may have had thoughts not to, or the person (child) was 'thrown' on to them doesn't mean it wasn't with intent. I intend for the baby to get killed and removed. Yes, it intent.
I take that back.
I think someone needs to be summoned here.
My bad, looked at the time per arguments do you mind increasing to a week?
Otherwise, I might lose track of time.
I'll consider.
You got it. Both interesting characters. I expected a different character on whiteflame's side but he sure is in the mix of tragic characters.
I considered. However it would slightly be inefficient. Though it would help with their opinions, it doesn't completly help me ackknowledge about the opposing side. I would rather get into a debate already confident with the pros or cons about the opposing side. Further, it seems I only cover some issues rather than underlining the main or not quite known issues.
However, I'll consider a bit more and might try it out.
You want to be con?
It's temporary.
I want to do more research on my stronger opinions and constructing. Such as standerized testing, I will come back fully acknowledged on the pros and cons and recreate the debate. Then, i'll focus more on those opinions and constructing the correct frameworks.
As he turns off his gaming computer the projection of the indoor grass fades away.
I wasn't going to go through the statistics of "grass is..." or "touching is..", I didn't take this debate seriously in anyway. I wasn't going to provide defintions when this was a troll debate. I even showed a picture of grass LOL. That's my way of defining it. It was used in the context of "you don't know what grass looks like, so go ahead look at this picture and go outside and touch it".
If you're going far into the statistics, think about the entire thing revolving around touching grass. (Aka, it's translated to telling someone to go outside). This debate is giving "reasons" why someone needs to touch grass. Like being a discord moderator, you need to go outside, do something with your life, touch some grass. It's all the humor in it.
So, whatever you call my side of the debating is fine. I wasn't looking to impress with this.
I'm willing to accept this challenge if you make another or challenge me. I missed the opportunity as I was offline and would've took this position if I was online. If you want to debate me on this topic I am fine with that.
Otherwise, I'll be watching on the 'side-lines'.
I can't tell if con is using your fetus definition against you. It's actually funny, but something that can cost you if not clarified.
I might.. Might vote on this when it ends if I can find the time.
I was expecting a bit of a different response as I feel some arguments made no contraction except helping me better understand the opposing side.
Alright, thanks. I'll keep this in mind for part two, if a part two that is.
Are you alright with a link to google docs (public)? Or would you like me to shorten it?
So, what's the argument here?
To be fair, he would've won that diss if I voted. I just saw no need when he left the website.
I was referring to: "The conduct by Con got a little cocky passive-aggressive with these comments."
Mockery, cocky, passive-aggressive, eh. But alrighty.
It wasn't typical mockery. I only added it because, if you say "vote for x" in mid debate, how does that make the opposing side think? I'm fine if they win, sure, I never said I will win. Usually everyone puts "vote x" at the end of their debates. But win or not, this is how he voter feels. I could be right, and still be voted against (not saying I am or not right). So in the end, if I still feel I proved something that really, can't be completely argued against then I do. But showing completely "im going to win" 'in front of my face' was the plain mockery.
Besides that, thanks.
I would hope to keep this conversation up, but I have already stated it multiple times.
Gender is how you identify, social construct, how you choose to identify. Not your biological self. And ill keep defending that.
I simply won't (but I keep anyways) repeat this.
As for your questions, ill answer that. Everything else you say would just be me repeating the following above.
"1. If there's more than 2 genders, that applies to cows right? Can there can be a cow that's a third gender? If so, does the same logic apply to dogs and cats?"
In the mists of this debate, it says "human race", I wasnt commenting on animals.
Outside of that, I don't know. Can they speak human language? Do we know how they feel inside?
"2. Please explain how a human can identify as a cow? Are humans born with hooves?"
They just do, I really can't explain in any further detail because I don't identify as one.
As I repeat, it's how you feel inside. So, it doesn't matter if (biologically) you are human.
I state in the debate, Cisgender is a gender. Not female and male. Why did I say that?
Because, it is something that is parrel with your sex.
--
I feel the only way that this is denied is if you nitpick at the "well gender is not gender identity".
"What I am trying to say is that no matter what gender identity you put on someone, what they identify as will always be based upon the gender binary"
So, in my perspective, does ir matter? Because if you want to go that route, then still, these genders are genders. We can nitpick at the fact that gender doesn't mean gender identity all you want, but, if something is apart of gender then yes. It still can be considered their own gender.
Consider:
Biological female identifys as they/them. What is this then? What gender is this? Is this not a gender? If not a gender, what is it?
"Also making part 2 soon."
Yeah, as said, i'm good with that. I would prefer if it would be one week though. My schedule usually can't fit a three day debate.
That said, ill be focusing more on comments from this debate. If I can't prove it in a way that makes more sense for voters, ill change it. So, expect a slight difference.
Real quick, even if it is strongly held that it isn't, I still believe:
No, sex and gender aren't the same thing and that is a misconception. If you identify as a cow, heck, sure. Would your sex be biologically a cow though? No. They aren't the same. Pro confirms themselves, it is a social construct.
Definition of social construct: "A social construct is a concept that exists not in objective reality, but as a result of human interaction."
And you cannot compare someone trying to be like well, I know i'm black but I identify as white. Because, heres the problem. Race is not a social construct. It is biological. Gender is not biological.
And I will continue to stress this fact even if voters disagree or find it weak.
I didn't get notified, my bad.
"Something interesting I have learned from you."
Alright, let's hear it.
"I don't know where you are basing your arguments off of, but I did learn something. You have a completely different perception of reality, and it doesn't align with......well reality.
From what I can tell, (correct me if I am wrong) your perception of reality is that the definition of gender is how someone identifies themselves based upon how they feel. You claim that you can't identify as a man or identify as a woman. You can only identify as "Cisgender" (strait) or any of the other gender identities like Non-Binary, and Trans-gender. This is what I am noticing you believe."
Summary: 1. I notice you believe that gender is something based on how you feel. 2. I also notice, you think you can't identify as a female or male, only Cisgender and other genders.
1. First off, yes you're correct from my perspective. It is something based on how you feel, but to an extent. Don't try to twist and turn the tables by saying "okay, I feel like a male", I see through that. It's just like saying, "I don't feel like either female or male", that is just the definition or base of your gender. That would mean your non-binary. Just my thought process.
2. Correct, my first comment explains a bit of relative information.
"Also, I am making a #2 to this debate as agreed."
I am fine with that, go ahead.
My bad, i'll post my argument next time.
I forgot to mention this in the debate, but..
You said: "For someone who says putting labels on someone who doesn't identify that way is rude .."
But also say in your short description: "Come at me Lib-tards."
Thank you, I appreciate your advice on what is rude and what is not!
I thought I would comment this, there are exterior factore that the association can get paid.
Tickets, sponserships, merchandise, and through television. All of these are factors where "The NBA should be paid more than the WNBA" is a correct resolution. As a result, I just have to show why they need more revenue. Since they are lower in revnue, they need to sell (which in realty is paying the WNBA) more, so its possible. They should get paid more so they can arract more people.
I doubt pro thought of that though.