Bella3sp

Appreciate it.

Made me laugh.

Also had better understanding of the hilarity of this debate.

[ ] - personal thoughts that are not judged based on

..

Resolution: "Female trans athletes have an unfair advantage"
With this resolution pro has it quite easy. Pro only has to prove that female trans athletes have an unfair advantage, in what? It doesn't matter; just that in general, trans athletes have an unfair advantage.

Burden is clearly on pro to prove the resolution.

..

Winners selection:

Round one - Pro
Pro gives one major piece in his first round: "Lia Thomas was ranked 200th as a male swimmer and won the national championship the first year she competed as a woman. She towered over her opponents and clearly had the male biological advantage"

No evidence fo support the male biological advantage or evidence from Lia Thomas winning national championship, I think these are all well known events and factors.

[I also considered the fact that nobody in this used direct evidence to link]

Round one - Con
This is where con contests the idea of the resolution.
I don't believe this factors into anything at all as the resolution itself makes it clear.

Round two - Pro
Pro proceeds by furthering themselves while also in the process rebuttaling.

Pro mentions that society itself has decided that men have an unfair advantage, given to them at birth, that creates an unfair advantage when competing.
Which I believe cuts it for pro. That's all pro really needed, that trans woman athletes have an unfair advantage.

However, i'll continue to judge, in case for rebuttals regarding the statment on biological unfair advantages or contesting it indirectly.

Round two - Con
Con gives that multiple people have unfair advantages at birth because we are all diverse.
However, this doesn't negate the fact trans woman athletes have an unfair advantage against biological woman.

Round two general:
[I did review his reflect at pro stating: "If sex no longer matters let ALL men and women compete together."
But it didn't seem to spark enough to review it as it becomes practically irrevelent due to con's statement]

Round three - Pro
Pro just restates differently, saying men shouldn't allow men to compete in woman's elite sports unless all men join in.
Which hences, would lead to, due to biological differences, the end for woman elite sports.

Round three - Con
Con talks about the factor that a transwoman can be just as smart as a biological woman, not smarter, not better in anyway. As of which they compared a ten year old to another ten year old. It will be slightly important later on in round four.

[I also find it a but contradicting being the fact they said we we're all diverse, but I get the point.]

Round four - Pro
Pro disregards concern for a ten year old rather than a high schooler or above.
This being because they might be competing for the following:

- Spot on the olympic or national team
- Endorsement deals
- Future professional sports

Round four - Con
Nothing much but trying to prove the point that a transwoman can get similar if not the same results to a biological woman.

Round five - Pro
Pro restates again about letting all men compete with woman, woman would not be able to compete, or in this case, win.
And does concede to the fact that a male athlete can have similar results to a biological woman athlete.

Round five - Con
This is where con's main point is shown again.

Some transwoman athletes can have similar results to woman athletes meaning that, those transwoman should be able to compete.

Overall Impression:
Pro gave the advantage transwoman athletes have and showed an example as proof of the biological difference. That was all there was to it. Con never directly contested this idea, though while some transgender peope can get similar results, that doesn't mean transgender men don't have biological advantages regardless. And this resolution doesn't say "all transgender athletes have an unfair advantage" but it's implied since it says "trans athletes" so we are to think in general terms. Trans athlete as a whole. But once again, I am to think that biologically, they (transwoman) still have the advantage over woman, even if they can get similar results.

I can have the advantage of getting a ten second headstart, but I can still lose the race.
Transwoman can have an unfair advantage biologically, but still manage to get similar scores.

The advantage is still there regardless of results.

In light of all that, pro has proved the advantage. Transwoman have an unfair biological advantage when competing against biological woman.

WINNER SELECTION: Pro.

RationalMadMan: "I will make you concede the debate, little worm".

I'm sorry I laughed. The roles just reversed real quick.

Anyways, con conceded in round five. All points to pro.

I grade the standards in-order.
[ ] - is personal thoughts not regarded.

[Pro uses truism, wow! So impressed!]

Besides that, con states the obvious: Humans can eat (put in mouth and swalllw) meat. Pro doesn't counter besides saying it's bad, and harmful to humans and animals.

Let's look at the burden:
"Humans can eat raw meat"

Pro has fufilled the burden by showing good raw meat recipes, and they can eat it regardless. Con does not. Just stating it's harmful (humans and animals) and vegans are usually skinny and hot, but the burden is not: "Is raw meat better to eat" or something along those lines.

Also, con admits to con's main argument ssying: "Well, yeah, thats a fact."
[I don't blame con, it's truism. Like who knew humans can eat raw meat regardleds of side effects? Nooo.. I didn't know.]

But con slightly concedes to that argument. Either way, pro wins this by proving exactly the burden.

ARGUMENTS: Pro.

Pro's sources were irreverent. Which means this does not contribute towards "better sources".

SOURCES: Tie.

Nothing horrible.

LEGIBILITY: Tie.

Con handled pro's slight attacks at calling poor people losers. Con says they happen to be poor, pro continues. And well, I am just sooo deeply hurt for con over here. Con handled it well!

CONDUCT: Con.

RFD in comments.
1: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4600/comments/55110
2: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4600/comments/55111

I think pro's arguments can be considered to be counted towards the burden, but at the same time, not really?...

But assuming this was a troll debate, I laughed a little more on pro's part. Though con's comment was a bit funny as well.

As for how I graded my vote, points wise, the standard was basically acting as winner's choice.

ARUGMENTS: Con.

RFD comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533-islam-vs-anything2?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=228
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533-islam-vs-anything2?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=229
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533-islam-vs-anything2?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=230

I think people always get confused on this topic considering a lot of differing factors, but besides that, only pro showed up.

ARGUMENT, SOURCES, LEGIBILITY AND CONDUCT:
I cannot give points to someone who didn't show up at all compared to someone who showed an arugment, sources and actually typed.
Easy pro win.

Pro's resolution was defensible, but they forfeited all rounds = con win.

Wasn't completely sure on voting on this due to my biased opinion, but here we go. Any questions, mention or message me.

This debate is mainly about, is the 'soon-to-be human' or in pro's case, the 'human' an actual human being?

Round 1-3:
Pro starts off semi weak with his argument that abortion is illegal in some places. I expected a bit more of a further argument from the beginning but that's alright. Con counters this without arguing the majority by saying, are these 'clumps of cells' human? And if we scratch off multiple skin cells per day, are we murderers? Pro counters this by saying basically we are all made of cells, fetus cells are not skin cells and stating the fetus definition. The end process leaves something dangerous. In his definition, he mentions "mammal". Which con immediately recognizes and states it as "not murder". However, I won't judge this significantly because con never elaborates. What is abortion? Does this apply to mammals, abortion wise? Do animals have abortions? What is the majority of animals that get abortions versus humans if so? Then from there, nothing happens until round four.

Round four:
Pro seemingly puts their conclusion in round four stating the significance of DNA. They state from the beginning of conception a human being is being formed. They further this by saying that the DNA of an embryo proves they are an individual person. Con counters by really just saying they have more in common with cells.

Since pro says fetuses are made of cells, and doesn't explain what cells besides DNA cells…

I'm left with the impression that even with these DNA cells, they (embryos or fetus) have more in common with cells based on their behaviors, etc.. Even though con didn't explain how they are more related to cells or in which ways, it's never countered due to pro's forfeit.

ARGUMENTS to Con.

Sources are iffy on pro's side.

Pro made a significant error with their website. Usually judges tend to skip over the sources, but I checked it out because nothing was quite cited. Pro's website actually shows that the majority of abortions are legal, they show the reason an abortion is being issued and why making abortions illegal would negatively affect people. Rather helping pro's case, this goes towards cons. For that reason, I'm giving this to con.

SOURCES to Con.

LEGIBILITY: All good from both sides, tie.

CONDUCT: For the most part conduct was alright, only one disappearance. I'll still give this overall a tie.

Mainly guys, I just wish there was more elaboration in general. What is abortion? It wasn't even defined. If you claim something such as mammals have abortions therefore it's not always murder, I need to know abortions are, can animals even be included? How are fetuses or embryos more related to cells than humans? In which ways?

Concession by Con.

Winter: Con

Reason for full vote towards con:
Plagiarism

Notes to conclude:
Con provides one accusation rather than an argument he accuses his opponent of plagiarism. Con cites sources and concludes with basically, "if my opponent can not put their own efforts why should I?" Pro then refuses to engage in the debate to counter any of cons argument. First off, this is an impression that I consider as a somewhat concession. It's not a formal concession but pro never does fully counter the argument. As said, pro even refuses to engage with the accusations. Therefore it leaves one thing, con leaves unrefuted with his accusations. Under Code of Conduct it is for the voters to give points towards the opposing side that is not engaging in plagiarism.

I decided I wasn't going to vote on debates that are 40% or more forfeits. Though, since this one is on the verge of being a tie I decided to vote. I guess this is my vote for getting back into the website.

--

I got this from whiteflame with a comment he left on a debate:
"and if one side forfeits more than or equal to 40% of the rounds, the debate can be considered a full forfeit".

DART's Code of Conduct, Voting Policy:
"but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant)."

I believe this allows me to vote for con without question.

Nothing made me laugh, but that usually tends to be the case with troll debates.

Pro waived, con didn't.

Concession by pro.

Further,

I got this from whiteflame with a comment he left on a debate:
"and if one side forfeits more than or equal to 40% of the rounds, the debate can be considered a full forfeit".

DART's Code of Conduct, Voting Policy:
"but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant)."

I believe this allows me to vote for con without question.

Second to last debate for his voting qualification.

I haven't had Olive Garden's dressing for quite awhile. Maybe a few years?
Cucumbers were shown (from con) to enhance a garden salads taste and it would even be better topped off with dressing from Olive Garden.

Well these qualifications suck.

I'm not even a big fan of salads but i've actually tried sunomono salad and I would recommend.
Con is right.. it really just couldn't be made without cucumbers unless you a bowl of dressing and spices.

"Okay" for the win.
Even though this debate is hardly debatable, con takes this for his response.

If needed,

I got this from whiteflame with a comment he left on a debate:
"and if one side forfeits more than or equal to 40% of the rounds, the debate can be considered a full forfeit".

DART's Code of Conduct, Voting Policy:
"but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant)."

I believe this allows me to vote for con without question.

Con was actually doing good, that was until the fourth round where they had less than 3500 characters per the rules of the debate.

As a voter, even though I was sure pro was right, I made sure and fact checked if con had less characters than required. Sure enough, they did.

I encourage con to engage in the same debate again, even copy and pasting some arguments. As you have probably noticed, pro posts this same debate, same parameters, and same rules quite often. Props to pro for continuing the debate even with cons concession.

Short answer: I vote pro due to concession from con. What concession? Having less than 3500 characters in round four.

First off, in the description of the debate it states, "Forfeiting a round will result in a loss." Not only did pro forfeit one round, he forfeited all but one. This has already made me push my vote towards pro.

However, I also would like to mention,

I got this from whiteflame with a comment he left on a debate:
"and if one side forfeits more than or equal to 40% of the rounds, the debate can be considered a full forfeit".

DART's Code of Conduct, Voting Policy:
"but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant)."

I believe this allows me to vote for pro without question.

Props to pro for continuing it even with cons forfeit.

FF by Pro.

Arguments:
Con had an argument, pro didn't.

Sources:
Nobody had any sources. Thus a tie.

Legibility:
How am I supposed to grade someone who didn't make an appearance in the debate? I don't. This point goes towards con because he actually showed up.

Conduct:
Con forfeited all but one round while as pro forfeited all. Since pro forfeited more, this point goes towards con.

Pro made an argument while con was silent the entire time.
Therefore, I vote pro.

Yeah, pretty boring debate.. I believe pro covered mostly all of cons arguments, but I believe con dropped most if not all of pros arguments.

This is honestly straight forward, I vote pro.

Pro in short started talking about making your own scenery, such as looks of characters rather than a movie showing you something. Books put less strain on your eyes than movies and also is possible to increase your creativity. It includes less brain power than a movie. And after that he basically repeats his first argument, but stating "better emotional entertainment".

Con's only rebuttal:
"1. I know that this can apply to poor movies as well but if I book is written poorly or with typos it can ruin the impact and make it harder to understand, more so than Tv in my opinion."

I'm not sure how this even related to con's argument? He never responded towards any of the claims made by pro meaning he dropped them.

Any questions? I'll handle them through messages or comments.

FF by Pro.

Arguments:
Con made arguments, pro did not.

Sources:
Con had one source, pro had none.

Legibility:
How can I give this a tie when pro never spoke? Con spoke, while as pro didn't.

Conduct:
Con never forfeited, pro forfeited all rounds.

50% ff by pro.

Further,

Got this from whiteflame with a comment he left on a debate:
"and if one side forfeits more than or equal to 40% of the rounds, the debate can be considered a full forfeit".

Also, in the comments I state the forfeit measures per DART's Code of Conduct.
"but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant)."

I believe this allows me to vote for con without question.

I think that many of pros points weren't the most relevant or helped his resolution, however, Sir.Lancelot forfeited too many rounds.

Plagiarism, ChatGPT.
(I checked the comments)

Arguments:
Con takes this because of plagiarism.

Sources:
Con had one, pro had none. Therefore, con gets this point. However, even with his source, because of plagiarism, he would get this either way.

Legibility:
I don't think anything was hard to read. The format doesn't matter. Meaning I'll give this a tie.

Conduct:
Con had plagiarism, both had the same amount of forfiets, but con made an argument in the last round. Pro really wasn't able to counter anything, being it was the last round. However, I still believe plagiarism outweighs this, meaning I give this point to con.

Full Forfeit.

Mutual FF.

Sigh.. This update..

Quick Note:
It can clearly be seen that they are both the same person. Both were created on the same day, and this argument was posted where nobody could accept the challenge but one person. This person being iamham. However, i'll still judge accordingly.

Arguments:
Pro states "Ham is bad because it is hammy and it is not plump and not healthy", which in last part of his argument is his rebuttal and con then argued about the protein, minerals, and other nutrients however never rebuttals against the rebuttal about ham being "plump".

I would also state that con made an argument as of which pro never responded, however, it was in the last round and really nobody could counter that. Either way, an argument is an argument, and pro dropped it. His (cons) last round argument wasn't necessarily valid but did provide a valid point.

Meaning I give the arguments a tie.

Sources:
No side provides sources, thus a tie.

Legibility:
iamham states "and sfdhijahdfiu" which determines, though a small mistake, who's the winner of legibility.

Conduct:
Con makes a new argument in the last round whereas con can no longer make a rebuttal against, meaning I give pro this point.

---

Questions? I'll answer them in the comments or messages.

I think this BoP would be shared, however both users dropped each other's arguments. I believe that Pro dropped more arguments than Con. Both arguments could be proved, however weren't proved with any type of sources. All of this said, based on con's arguments, even if someone was well disciplined, the effects of corporal punishment could still leave everlasting effects on the person.

"It causes physical and mental unwellness. It can also cause children to have difficulties with cognitive and social development, as well as reduced academic success and increased aggression and violence." This gives the impression that even if it grants more discipline, it still affects them in little to severe cases.

Summary:
- Pro dropped more arguments.
- Convincing argument towards physical and mental unwellness which counters pros argument alone.

As for the extras,
Sources: Nobody used any type of sources, thus a tie.
Legibility: Both users had little to no significant amount of spelling errors and nothing was extremely hard to read. Meaning, this ends in a tie.
Conduct: Both forfeited an equal amount of rounds. I will say, making an appearance in the last round where someone cannot counter it, can be considered as bad conduct, meaning I give this point towards con.

Any questions? I will handle them through messages or comments.

Full forfeit by con

A. Pro had arguments, con had none whatsoever.
B. Pro used 7 sources, con had none.
C. Pro actually had words, I can't give con anything for never writing anything.
D. Pro stuck with the debate the entire time even with con's concession.

Less forfeiture. Along with pro making an argument, while as con dropped them all.