Counterpoint, I am a European confused by British and American spelling. Color and Colour are both valid, so in my discombobulated mind, Genious sounds correct also. This must be remedied.
Another issue. You never established their administrative competancy. Like, you cite their intelligence and show feats of their battle intelligence, but those are not as important. Naruto's strenght makes him a better fighter than anyone who is not god level like he is, even if they had a gazillion IQ points. The only character you actually tried to argue had good political skills were tsunade, you said it was impressive she understood the assignment so quickly. But you never point out a single political decision any of the others made while acting as Hokage. Like, take Boby Fisher. You could make an argument like you did that he was smarter than all the presidents. But that genious has only ever expressed itself in chess. You can see he had some very bonkers political opinions. My point is that next time you want to make an argument about characters being good politicians, you have to back it up with political feats, not just statements about their general intelligence, book smarts or battle-prowess.
If you compare Teddy Roosevelt with another politician, but then you only talk about the other guy's badassery rather than his politics, Roosevelt will always come up on top in that comparison.
Some situations thinking critically wastes precious time. Going with your guts when making split time decisions can be the morally correct in many cases.
Barney is a genious. He sacrifices his conduct point, in order to make a statement about how conduct points are necesary, thus winning the argument points.
Best.Korea is apparently like a cat, he will do what one explicitly tells him not to do. But he is also like a dog, he will bark at animals way larger than himself. Like accepting unwinnable debates.
RationalMadman has added a very bad vote where he basically projects his own arguments onto the PRO case and where he uses PRO's single source, which doesn't say PRO is correct, to double vote.
You are just saying that transwomen are not bilogical women. That is objectively true, and I have never seen anyone claim otherwise. You are attacking a straw man.
Are you saying that transwomen are not bilogical women? That is objectively true.
Are you saying that transwomen are not women as in the gender? That is objectively false because gender is literally defined as your own sense of self, it is not tied to anything objective.
Are you saying that you want to abolish the concept of gender altogether? That is a completely different debate.
Are you saying that transwomen should not be treated like women (the gender) or women (the sex)? That is also a completely different debate.
"""there was this weirdness of the desire to get rid of the book to acquire a dildo and kettle (that intuitively says it's better to have those things than a textbook)."""
Is this how you interpreted my argument? I thought I was pretty clear that in saying that the school book is worth more than both of those to items combined. Imagine if I said its better to have a million dollars than to have an average house, because the money allows you to buy a house and more. Would you interpret that as me saying that an average house is better than a million dollars? I actually never even said that you SHOULD buy the kettle and dildo, just that you COULD.
I respect your right to weigh our arguments against each other but I just don't think that it is a fair interpretation of my argument.
But what is even your purpose with this debate. Do you want to bait someone in with vague wording and then barage them with semantics. Why not clarify your position?
Oh I am fully there, 100% there already. I just happen to think that treating people as their real gender rather than pretending their gender has to match their sex is the decent thing to do.
Transwomen are "real" women in the social sense. They are also "real" men in the biological sense. I have never heard any transwoman claim to be biological female. This is your strawman.
Hell is not contingent on any specific description. I define hell as the worst thing possible, such that if it was possible to make it worse, it would automatically take on the meaning of that new state.
What if an infinite people are in the worst hell logically possible. In that case, there is no outcome of the purple box that can result in a net negative.
Wylted, I am curious. How many palestinian lives is a single Israeli life worth? 1, 2, 5, 10, 50, 100, 1000? How many? And can you give me a justification for this number?
One could argue that historically any society that adopted communism immidiately becomes a target of the US, which renders it worse for society on average even if it had some hypothetical benefits taken in a vacuum.
1. In R1 I outlined my case with 6 sources. You also had only 6 sources in R1. In R2 you had 9 new sources. In my R2 I rebutted your sourced. In R3 I added 10 new sources, the 8 others you counted were sources that you originally cited, and where I linked two claims seperated by some text to the same source. For example, I cited the 43 year Netherland study, it was actually you that first brought it up in R2 as evidence for 8 year average time to regret. Of course looking into the source revealed less than favorable data for the CON side, that is why I elected to include it in my R3. But yeah, if I hadn't been squeezed for time IRL at that point, I would have provided many more sources in R1, which would have made the distribution more even. But I reject your claim that I blitzed random claims without reading sources. All of my new sources support arguments I already made or refuted claims that you had been making. All of them had lot of academic weight. It was NOT a gish gallop.
2. You say that I abandoned any source that you critiqued. But I affirmed all of the sources and repeated them in R3. You say that a meta-study on 8000 GAC recipients may contain bias or influence by cofounders. I defend by saying that even granting 90% of regrets as unreported due to bias, it still doesn't flip the result, it would still be less than 10% regret. With regards to the hormone treatment source, what is there to say. You quoted that causal inference was somewhat limited, which is valid. But I never abandoned it or conceeded its result to be false. With regards to puberty blockers for children. You never actually attack my source. Instead you introduce other sources that claim the opposite. In response I explain why those sources are unreliable or don't say what you want them to say, and then I bring up new sources to elaborate on my previous claims and further solidify my case.
Why would I waste characters to "defend" my sources when you never launches an adequate attack against them to begin with. Especially when there are hundreds of research papers that all support the PRO positon, why should I not bring up more of them.
You claim that I manipulated my sources. Give me a single example where I claim that my source says X but the source says Y not X.
You don't have to respond to this comment. But here are 5 things you wrote in the third round that were 100% wrong. 5 mistakes you could have avoided by reading better.
1. You claim that I was missing the point and forgot to adress your claim that "puberty blockers have deleterious impact on children". Not only did you never make this claim before R3, it is also not true. The FDA does approve of puberty blockers in children because of decades of evidence that it is safe for children. None of your R2 or R3 sources claimed reduced bone mass in children, only in adolescents who took PB + Cross-X HT. That is the claim which I refuted in R3 and demonstrated to be not a problem in the long run. So I did not miss the point.
2. You also claimed that the 2015 American survey of 20 000 transgenders had no validity because "they could have received their surgery a month prior to the study and still be feeling rapid onset dysphoria.". But that is literally not true. Read my citation in R2: "they only counted those that had surgery at least 2 years prior".
3. You said that "When gender dysphoria doesn't seem to be alleviated, this is in spite of GAC" which is a lie, I never said that. I rejected the claim that gender dysphoria seems to no be alliviated. What I actually said is that health outcomes could still be negative DESPITE reduced gender dysphoria. That is not the same as saying gender dysphoria is unaffected by GAC.
4. You said that "PRO has quoted the studies admission that their former findings (the ones which support GAC) were false, and taken it to be an admission that the new revision is false". But the line which I cited explained why GAC recipient to GAC non-recipient is a bad comparison. So it refuted the usefullness of a new comparison they made after reading the letters. It is literally not possible that this quote is an admission that their original study has a wrong conclusion, because it is about a comparrison that wasn't included the original study. You may disagree with the writers but don't accuse me of misreading them.
5. You claim that I didn't adress your third study. But I literally did. In R3 I said: " the third study of his measures psychiatric morbidity in general, not gender dysphoria specifically like CON is insinuating." So I did not resign answering this third source. I pointed out that it found GAC recipients to have increased depression and anxiety in general, but didn't say that gender dysphoria specifically had increased. So you could maybe argue that continued gender dysphoria potentially caused these problems, but don't lie and say I didn't mention it.
So maybe next time spend some more time to read what you wrote in earlier rounds, read what your opponent actually wrote and read what the sources actually say.
Do you think you have time the next two months to write a vote for this debate? You are known for the highest quality votes, especially when it comes to science debates and evaluating sources.
Vote bump.
Vote bump.
Vote bump
Time to lose some elo lol.
Fine by me, but I will prefer one week for argument.
Arguing genocide is too easy.
Finally someone gets it.
This proposal would literally constitute white genocide.
Counterpoint, I am a European confused by British and American spelling. Color and Colour are both valid, so in my discombobulated mind, Genious sounds correct also. This must be remedied.
Another issue. You never established their administrative competancy. Like, you cite their intelligence and show feats of their battle intelligence, but those are not as important. Naruto's strenght makes him a better fighter than anyone who is not god level like he is, even if they had a gazillion IQ points. The only character you actually tried to argue had good political skills were tsunade, you said it was impressive she understood the assignment so quickly. But you never point out a single political decision any of the others made while acting as Hokage. Like, take Boby Fisher. You could make an argument like you did that he was smarter than all the presidents. But that genious has only ever expressed itself in chess. You can see he had some very bonkers political opinions. My point is that next time you want to make an argument about characters being good politicians, you have to back it up with political feats, not just statements about their general intelligence, book smarts or battle-prowess.
If you compare Teddy Roosevelt with another politician, but then you only talk about the other guy's badassery rather than his politics, Roosevelt will always come up on top in that comparison.
Some situations thinking critically wastes precious time. Going with your guts when making split time decisions can be the morally correct in many cases.
Data doesn't lie. People lie using bad data. Lying requires intent.
Chill. I was making a joke. I am sure Barney is going to give you some good counterarguments to chew on.
Barney is a genious. He sacrifices his conduct point, in order to make a statement about how conduct points are necesary, thus winning the argument points.
Are you not going to interject and tell us that North Korea has the greatest healthcare system on the planet?
Both transgender women and cisgender women, and transgender men and cisgender men, must agree that budgies are cute.
https://image.petmd.com/files/styles/863x625/public/2023-01/budgies.row_.jpg
For PRO's safety, I urge you to only use 2% of your roasting power.
Then well done.
Did you actually write that argument?
My lines are catus, yours are written in catalan
Genius.
Fixed.
Vote bump.
Best.Korea is apparently like a cat, he will do what one explicitly tells him not to do. But he is also like a dog, he will bark at animals way larger than himself. Like accepting unwinnable debates.
If I cant understand your logic, neither can the judges. Betcha didnt think that strategy through.
I know that. I don't benefit either way. But the site as a whole benefits if bad votes are removed and the principle of quality votes being upheld.
RationalMadman has added a very bad vote where he basically projects his own arguments onto the PRO case and where he uses PRO's single source, which doesn't say PRO is correct, to double vote.
GG WP
You are just saying that transwomen are not bilogical women. That is objectively true, and I have never seen anyone claim otherwise. You are attacking a straw man.
Are you saying that transwomen are not bilogical women? That is objectively true.
Are you saying that transwomen are not women as in the gender? That is objectively false because gender is literally defined as your own sense of self, it is not tied to anything objective.
Are you saying that you want to abolish the concept of gender altogether? That is a completely different debate.
Are you saying that transwomen should not be treated like women (the gender) or women (the sex)? That is also a completely different debate.
"""there was this weirdness of the desire to get rid of the book to acquire a dildo and kettle (that intuitively says it's better to have those things than a textbook)."""
Is this how you interpreted my argument? I thought I was pretty clear that in saying that the school book is worth more than both of those to items combined. Imagine if I said its better to have a million dollars than to have an average house, because the money allows you to buy a house and more. Would you interpret that as me saying that an average house is better than a million dollars? I actually never even said that you SHOULD buy the kettle and dildo, just that you COULD.
I respect your right to weigh our arguments against each other but I just don't think that it is a fair interpretation of my argument.
But what is even your purpose with this debate. Do you want to bait someone in with vague wording and then barage them with semantics. Why not clarify your position?
Oh I am fully there, 100% there already. I just happen to think that treating people as their real gender rather than pretending their gender has to match their sex is the decent thing to do.
Transwomen are "real" women in the social sense. They are also "real" men in the biological sense. I have never heard any transwoman claim to be biological female. This is your strawman.
Hell is not contingent on any specific description. I define hell as the worst thing possible, such that if it was possible to make it worse, it would automatically take on the meaning of that new state.
What if an infinite people are in the worst hell logically possible. In that case, there is no outcome of the purple box that can result in a net negative.
You probably have like 100 comedy debates under your belt so this will be very tricky for me.
That's fine.
Good luck. Don't be afraid to give your best, I won't forfeit.
I have done a lot of reserach that I don't want wasted, so I would prefer if you didn't forfeit another round.
Wylted, I am curious. How many palestinian lives is a single Israeli life worth? 1, 2, 5, 10, 50, 100, 1000? How many? And can you give me a justification for this number?
Why do you believe that a rock can turn into a human?
One could argue that historically any society that adopted communism immidiately becomes a target of the US, which renders it worse for society on average even if it had some hypothetical benefits taken in a vacuum.
I noticed your source number 13 lacks a hyperlink refence in the sources section. Could you post it in the comments?
Thank you for voting
I do say so.
1. In R1 I outlined my case with 6 sources. You also had only 6 sources in R1. In R2 you had 9 new sources. In my R2 I rebutted your sourced. In R3 I added 10 new sources, the 8 others you counted were sources that you originally cited, and where I linked two claims seperated by some text to the same source. For example, I cited the 43 year Netherland study, it was actually you that first brought it up in R2 as evidence for 8 year average time to regret. Of course looking into the source revealed less than favorable data for the CON side, that is why I elected to include it in my R3. But yeah, if I hadn't been squeezed for time IRL at that point, I would have provided many more sources in R1, which would have made the distribution more even. But I reject your claim that I blitzed random claims without reading sources. All of my new sources support arguments I already made or refuted claims that you had been making. All of them had lot of academic weight. It was NOT a gish gallop.
2. You say that I abandoned any source that you critiqued. But I affirmed all of the sources and repeated them in R3. You say that a meta-study on 8000 GAC recipients may contain bias or influence by cofounders. I defend by saying that even granting 90% of regrets as unreported due to bias, it still doesn't flip the result, it would still be less than 10% regret. With regards to the hormone treatment source, what is there to say. You quoted that causal inference was somewhat limited, which is valid. But I never abandoned it or conceeded its result to be false. With regards to puberty blockers for children. You never actually attack my source. Instead you introduce other sources that claim the opposite. In response I explain why those sources are unreliable or don't say what you want them to say, and then I bring up new sources to elaborate on my previous claims and further solidify my case.
Why would I waste characters to "defend" my sources when you never launches an adequate attack against them to begin with. Especially when there are hundreds of research papers that all support the PRO positon, why should I not bring up more of them.
You claim that I manipulated my sources. Give me a single example where I claim that my source says X but the source says Y not X.
Vote bump
You don't have to respond to this comment. But here are 5 things you wrote in the third round that were 100% wrong. 5 mistakes you could have avoided by reading better.
1. You claim that I was missing the point and forgot to adress your claim that "puberty blockers have deleterious impact on children". Not only did you never make this claim before R3, it is also not true. The FDA does approve of puberty blockers in children because of decades of evidence that it is safe for children. None of your R2 or R3 sources claimed reduced bone mass in children, only in adolescents who took PB + Cross-X HT. That is the claim which I refuted in R3 and demonstrated to be not a problem in the long run. So I did not miss the point.
2. You also claimed that the 2015 American survey of 20 000 transgenders had no validity because "they could have received their surgery a month prior to the study and still be feeling rapid onset dysphoria.". But that is literally not true. Read my citation in R2: "they only counted those that had surgery at least 2 years prior".
3. You said that "When gender dysphoria doesn't seem to be alleviated, this is in spite of GAC" which is a lie, I never said that. I rejected the claim that gender dysphoria seems to no be alliviated. What I actually said is that health outcomes could still be negative DESPITE reduced gender dysphoria. That is not the same as saying gender dysphoria is unaffected by GAC.
4. You said that "PRO has quoted the studies admission that their former findings (the ones which support GAC) were false, and taken it to be an admission that the new revision is false". But the line which I cited explained why GAC recipient to GAC non-recipient is a bad comparison. So it refuted the usefullness of a new comparison they made after reading the letters. It is literally not possible that this quote is an admission that their original study has a wrong conclusion, because it is about a comparrison that wasn't included the original study. You may disagree with the writers but don't accuse me of misreading them.
5. You claim that I didn't adress your third study. But I literally did. In R3 I said: " the third study of his measures psychiatric morbidity in general, not gender dysphoria specifically like CON is insinuating." So I did not resign answering this third source. I pointed out that it found GAC recipients to have increased depression and anxiety in general, but didn't say that gender dysphoria specifically had increased. So you could maybe argue that continued gender dysphoria potentially caused these problems, but don't lie and say I didn't mention it.
So maybe next time spend some more time to read what you wrote in earlier rounds, read what your opponent actually wrote and read what the sources actually say.
Do you think you have time the next two months to write a vote for this debate? You are known for the highest quality votes, especially when it comes to science debates and evaluating sources.
Vote bump