Personally, while I oppose transgenderism as a principle, I think in most cases it's best just to refer to the person as what they want to be referred to for the sake of avoiding conflict.
When it comes to policy-making and how transgenderism is assessed in regards to mental health, however, it should be treated far differently. But, the will of the masses tends to prevail, and with it comes our downfall in both the realms of free speech and intellectual honesty.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Crocodile // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:1; 5 points to PRO.
>Reason for Decision: "Regularly styled."
>Reason for Mod Action: After decades of deliberation and debate, the moderators have ruled that two words is not sufficient to meet the established voting requirements.
In my opinion, a dictionary saying something is something does not mean that it is true unless it is corroborated by evidence... Still, good luck fighting the "this is a truism" battle..
yeah... sorry for that. This one kinda snuck up on me too. Lately I've tried to vote on debates that seem about to be no-vote tie, but this one comes at a bad time for me
If one of you could vote on this one that would be great.. I was planning on it today, but I'm afraid I won't get to it...my brain is fried from finishing my last debate round lol
CORRECTION: In my vote, I said "This is dropped entirely, but PRO weakens their own point later by giving a source that undermines their argument that cul-de-sacs directly lower crime."
I meant: "This is dropped entirely, but CON weakens their own point later by giving a source that undermines their argument that cul-de-sacs directly lower crime."
"When we examine the diet of virtually all monkeys and apes, it’s nuts, fruits, leaves, insects, and the occasional snack of flesh. You may have seen rather shocking footage of adult chimpanzees killing and eating baby ones, but that’s a relative rarity compared with the quantities of non-meat products consumed.
...The expensive tissue hypothesis states that to have a larger brain, we needed to save metabolic energy elsewhere. To do this, our guts were shortened.
But this brought another issue: having a shorter gut meant that our diet had to be of a higher quality to provide enough nutrients. Enter the animal-based diet. It is worth noting that this theory is not roundly supported.
Some researchers believe that hunting prey contributed to our bipedal stance, and that planning and conducting a hunt could have assisted the development of language, communication, and complex societies."
A good way to avoid running out of characters like that, is if possible, summarize your opponent's argument in a short amount of space before refuting it.
They are, but it makes creationism seem more plausible by comparison. I don't see how you could argue for Intelligent design from a biblical standpoint
By far the best point in your favor is the biogenesis upon which an athiest evolutionary theory relies.
New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280 on page 527 (https://books.google.com/books?id=riW31Fy4kpkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=New+Scientist,+Nov+19,+1981&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjP8efk4rLkAhUER6wKHbW1D7EQ6AEwAHoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q&f=false):
"Imagine 10^50 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik's cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have a chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many bio-polymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the bio-polymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."
For a singular gene to arrive by chance, as Creation 1, no 1 (June 1978): 9-10 (https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/probability/a-look-at-some-figures/), explains:
“let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene.”
Yup, unfortunately though, horrible conduct is not a rare occurrence
I really hate it when the debaters spill over the debate in the comments, instead of keeping it in the arguments.
Interesting responses, time to wait another week and post last min again
No problem, it's a fine suggestion
Maybe when the tournament ends. I'm about to debate SupaDudz on "Resolved: Violent revolution is a just response to political oppression."
Personally, while I oppose transgenderism as a principle, I think in most cases it's best just to refer to the person as what they want to be referred to for the sake of avoiding conflict.
When it comes to policy-making and how transgenderism is assessed in regards to mental health, however, it should be treated far differently. But, the will of the masses tends to prevail, and with it comes our downfall in both the realms of free speech and intellectual honesty.
IK, just messing
well yes, it is a fact that it is a theory
PRO wins
I missed you! I don't know you, but I missed you!
I'll try
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Crocodile // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:1; 5 points to PRO.
>Reason for Decision: "Regularly styled."
>Reason for Mod Action: After decades of deliberation and debate, the moderators have ruled that two words is not sufficient to meet the established voting requirements.
In my opinion, a dictionary saying something is something does not mean that it is true unless it is corroborated by evidence... Still, good luck fighting the "this is a truism" battle..
"What's my problem? I'm a great person!"
2 seconds later: "White power is a fine ideology to have. Perfect for the kids!"
Tempting.... If there are no other takers, I may jump on this one.
You may go ahead and post something like "vote pro" for final round, just to speed things up
Danielle: comes acting like a noob, leaves champion of the site
Most people have referred to them as "she," but that may be wrong
Yeah, I can only think of That1, Danielle, and now Kbub. That's kind of sad.. I know there were a lot more on DDO
PIKA STALIN!
we will leave that to the voters to decide
I will be forever astonished at your speed of reply...
Our knight in shining armor comes to our rescue! Hail SirAnonymous!
yeah... sorry for that. This one kinda snuck up on me too. Lately I've tried to vote on debates that seem about to be no-vote tie, but this one comes at a bad time for me
If one of you could vote on this one that would be great.. I was planning on it today, but I'm afraid I won't get to it...my brain is fried from finishing my last debate round lol
welcome to the site
RFD?
More like it is up to me to try to defeat Supadudz! He is a strong debater
yes
yeah, it felt a bit lazy. I know he is capable of more
CORRECTION: In my vote, I said "This is dropped entirely, but PRO weakens their own point later by giving a source that undermines their argument that cul-de-sacs directly lower crime."
I meant: "This is dropped entirely, but CON weakens their own point later by giving a source that undermines their argument that cul-de-sacs directly lower crime."
There is incentive to do that as a criminal no matter what. I see it as a very small impact.
yikes
The answer seems to be that in a time of scarcity, we can not get picky and choosey. Animal products are essential for their high nutrient density.
But in times of obesity and overabundance.... We can afford to get a bit pickier.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320047#Meat-eating-and-human-evolution
"When we examine the diet of virtually all monkeys and apes, it’s nuts, fruits, leaves, insects, and the occasional snack of flesh. You may have seen rather shocking footage of adult chimpanzees killing and eating baby ones, but that’s a relative rarity compared with the quantities of non-meat products consumed.
...The expensive tissue hypothesis states that to have a larger brain, we needed to save metabolic energy elsewhere. To do this, our guts were shortened.
But this brought another issue: having a shorter gut meant that our diet had to be of a higher quality to provide enough nutrients. Enter the animal-based diet. It is worth noting that this theory is not roundly supported.
Some researchers believe that hunting prey contributed to our bipedal stance, and that planning and conducting a hunt could have assisted the development of language, communication, and complex societies."
I'll leave one soon, too tired atm
To be fair, I left the response in the comments BEFORE you accepted xD
Nah, SirAnonymous did. I just told him how to respond :)
I'd say it's a bloodline trait at this point.
accurate. Come to think of it, I have a family member who constantly pronounces "Arkansas" as "Ar- kansas" instead of "Arkansaw"
LOL yeah, someone called me out on that recently, I've been using the expression wrong my entire life without questioning it.
Same. Simultaneously believing in ID and Genesis seems impossible to me. I've yet to hear a solid explanation as to why they are compatible.
Np. I've felt the struggle
And obviously, ditch the quote in the process
A good way to avoid running out of characters like that, is if possible, summarize your opponent's argument in a short amount of space before refuting it.
noted
Decent response, given the timeframe you wrote it in
Not in this character count lmao
They are, but it makes creationism seem more plausible by comparison. I don't see how you could argue for Intelligent design from a biblical standpoint
By far the best point in your favor is the biogenesis upon which an athiest evolutionary theory relies.
New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280 on page 527 (https://books.google.com/books?id=riW31Fy4kpkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=New+Scientist,+Nov+19,+1981&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjP8efk4rLkAhUER6wKHbW1D7EQ6AEwAHoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q&f=false):
"Imagine 10^50 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik's cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have a chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many bio-polymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the bio-polymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."
For a singular gene to arrive by chance, as Creation 1, no 1 (June 1978): 9-10 (https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/probability/a-look-at-some-figures/), explains:
“let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene.”
My poor fingers ;-;