I moreso meant if 2 weeks was too little, we could do 1 month. 2 weeks is my preference. I'd at least like 15K characters at very minimum. 10K just ain't enough.
If you'd like to make a forum post where the community can comment, I'd accept that.
I don't want to give up definitions so much as I do think that the entire debate is about arguing definitions? Like, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how you could give an unambiguous definition of 'woman' that does not also intrinsically make one side of the debate a truism (unless you mean 'trans woman', which I'd be fine with agreeing on a definition to that).
Whiteflame is fine with me. Lance said Slainte is busy, so we can knock Slainte off the list. You can add 1-round forfeit = autoloss if you want.
Ignoratio elenchi is inherently already a problem since proving a point irrelevant to the resolution does nothing to advance your case, so I don't see why removing it is important (and also the relevance of something can also be up for debate).
As for the debate, I add 'makes more sense' because I would prefer for it to be set in stone exactly WHY we should do this. I'm okay with changing the wording to something along the lines of "It is more reasonable/useful." These are somewhat subjective metrics in terms of how you can prove when something is more reasonable or useful, sure, but I would argue that is the case with any on-balance metric.
I'd also like for it to be judges decision. Sir Lancelot, Savant, and Slainte (maybe Barney if he's up to it). I'm open to any judges so long as they're going to vote objectively.
I'm okay with knocking it down to 20k characters and 2 weeks. If it's really a deal-breaker, 1 month is fine.
I would honestly argue that the entire point of this debate is to argue definitions (specifically where, of two definitions, which is more reasonable), so unless we choose an ambiguous definition, I would struggle to see where that would apply. Do you have any examples?
I am interested. I'd like to give this topic the justice it deserves.
1 week argument time, 25k max characters. I'd reword the resolution to "It, on balance, makes more sense to classify trans women as women than to classify trans women as men."
I assumed this debate would be an easy noob-snipe (didn't end up being particularly easy as I may have hoped). I crafted my arguments accordingly lazily (if that wasn't evident from the fact I rarely used half the character count and did all of my arguments in less than 24 hours).
I'd like to do this debate again to properly demonstrate my position. Ideally against a different opponent with a longer max character count and longer argument time.
On another note: I welcome Rieka to the site. Hope this debate is the first of many for them.
I in no way expect to win this debate. I feel as though the bias on this site alone would render that an impossibility, though I'm open to being surprised.
Nevertheless, thank you for this debate. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did! You're truly deserving of that 100% winrate.
I agree. Your comment effectively summarizes all my hesitation to debate this particular resolution (I don't expect to win tbh, but it's fun nonetheless).
RMM, Google the definition of 'woman'. It's just an adult female.
Language is defined by its users and not its scholars. I'm curious how you think this is 'heteronormative', and I find it rich that you say that as a straight person to a gay person. I can attach a big "says who?" to everything you just said, but even if you could provide a satisfactory answer, it still wouldn't change the fact that 99.99999% of people use them effectively interchangeably.
The closest difference you'll get is that a woman is an adult female. Next to nobody differentiates between these terms on the basis of sex or gender roles.
This entire conversation about if woman and female mean the same thing is utterly pointless. You know what I was trying to say when I was talking with Bones in the comments of the previous debate. Regardless of which of us is correct, there is fundamentally no difference in anything I've said.
I believe I'll be fine for now, but I'll message you after my first round speech if I think that's necessary (I'd say my 2nd round speech, but that might screw you over). Thanks for your consideration!
This will probably be my last debate on this site for a while. Figured I'd ought to conduct my second absence with a bit more order and a bit less forfeiting.
I accept. I request 20k words and 14 days per argument, but I don't mind doing 15k and 7 days (just like this debate) if that's an issue.
Still not really my comfort zone, but I suppose challenging yourself is important, eh? I guess I was hesitant solely because I haven't ever seen a need to choose between either gender or sex for the definition. I always figured 'female' and 'biological female' could coexist while both conveying necessary, relevant information.
I still prefer my wording of the resolution (gender is a more useful way to define male or female than biological sex), but since we agree that definitions should be based on what is most useful, I don't foresee that causing any problems. All in good faith, after all.
They are used interchangeably by almost every English-speaking person. Language is defined by it's users, not by its dictionaries.
If you expect me to cater to the differences between your understanding of what the definition of a 'woman' or 'female' is, in spite of the fact we both know what I'm talking about, you're sorely mistaken.
It honestly could just be that the wording of this resolution is less familiar to me as opposed to the specific topics which I am prepared and experienced in debating in. I suppose I also want to avoid any shenanigans relating to trying to decide on a singular definition as opposed to a collection of definitions where one is more useful than the others (not saying I'd expect shenanigans from you, it's just instinctive, I suppose).
My arguments have always been a) trans women are biologically women and b) gender is a more useful way to define male or female than biological sex. This topic almost feels like both at the same time, I suppose? Trying to argue both at the same time feels contradictory, I suppose. I'll think it over some.
If you look at a collection of physical characteristics to define what a woman is (which I agree is how it should be done), you'll find that a lot of trans women fits into that category just as much as cis women do. If you look at a singular definition, you either include trans women or pointlessly exclude cis women.
They are largely compatible, sure, but there exists situations where an endocrinologist would define someone as one sex and a gynecologist would define that same person as a different sex. Neither the endocrinologist nor the gynecologist is wrong. To follow only the endocrinologist's definition or the gynecologists definition is entirely useless and, in many ways, harmful. An endocrinologist needs to give the treatment of a female to anyone who has an estrogen-dependent cancer irrespective of if they have male genitalia. A gynecologist can't refuse to see someone who has a vagina on the grounds that "because they have a male's hormonal profile, they do not need to see a gynecologist."
In that way, it is impossible to come up with a single, sex-based definition of a woman that is useful in the majority of applications. To define a woman based on gender is the only way to have a consistent definition applicable in the majority of contexts.
Any sex-based definition is wholly irrelevant in how someone lives their life, presents themselves, wishes to be referred as, should be treated as, feels like, etc... It provides no useful information and to follow that definition would be less useful and often actively harmful as opposed to using a gender-based definition to answer the question of if someone is a female or not.
What their sex is can be an entirely separate question based on the relevant context.
I have yet to do any research into the transgender swimming ban, so I hesitate to give any definitive opinions, but I've debated before and can present very compelling evidence that trans women post-transition do not possess an advantage over cis women on average (https://www.debateart.com/debates/3104-allowing-transgendered-athletes-mtf-to-compete-in-athletics-against-biological-females-is-unfair). I am not aware of any reason that those arguments would not be applicable to swimming.
If we agree that definitions are based on what is the most useful definition in the context, a 'woman' is someone who identifies as such. Any other definition both a) leaves out cis women unreasonably and b) is less useful in the majority of situations.
Defining a woman by things like her chromosomes is pointless. If you took a woman and changed her chromosomes (women who possess all biological traits of females but have male chromosomes do exist and are not an insignificant portion of the population), she would still be a woman; it would be ridiculous to say otherwise in anything more than a t e c h n i c a l l y correct manner (based on a pointless definition). To use the definition based on chromosomes and to say she is not a woman because of her chromosomes provides effectively no useful information in 99.9% of contexts.
It's my opinion that seeking useful, singular, absolute definitions for abstract concepts is an exercise in futility. You can't create a sex-based definition for 'female' that does not unreasonably and pointlessly exclude cis women without including trans-women.
I'm definitely down for a debate on a similar topic! However, this resolution is not something I would debate personally.
The definition of something is dependent on what's most useful given the context. An endocrinologist's definition of a woman is someone who has female hormones, whereas a gynecologist's definition is someone who has female genitalia. Despite having two different definitions, neither is incorrect; they are just using the definition that is the most relevant to their profession.
Trying to create a blanket definition of a female is impossible, neither of us could create an argument beyond naming situations where the definition being one's gender or one's sex is more relevant, and I would lose because of the bias of this site.
Some resolutions I would consider debating:
THBT on balance, we ought to treat trans people as the gender they identify as in the majority of social situations
THBT in most useful definitions, a trans woman/man is a woman/man
THBT after transitioning, female, trans athletes do not possess an unfair advantage in cisgender women's sports most of the time
No. I'm still dependent on my parents and thus don't have much control over my diet. I think I'll probably become vegetarian or vegan later in my life, though.
I created this debate to prove a point to Novice, that being that, even if I lose this debate, this debate is not inherently unwinnable and I would perform significantly better and could present an actual argument that would stand up to scrutiny. Him being completely swept by RMM was the result of poor debating, not the debate topic or bias.
I understand your thought process, but I figured that my definitions were sufficient because of the implication that there currently and into the foreseeable future is a need ("if there is NO LONGER a need"). If there is not a need presently and into the foreseeable future (excluding COVID-19, which is the obvious reason), I believed the resolution would fail because it doesn't meet the definition of indefinitely. I thought the resolution would then just be "is there a need for mask mandates currently and as far as we can reasonably see into the future (even if COVID-19 dies out)," but I can see how the definition could be abused.
That's my mistake and I thank you for pointing that out to me.
ADoL doesn't debate as to avoid the ad populum fallacy.
If you stop debating, it will be to avoid recognizing that you could even in some minor way improved your debating.
As a trans person having to justify my own existence regularly on this site that's heavily biased against me, I can tell you that it's bias plays a factor, but it's not insurmountable. When you have half a dozen people including the most active and reputable debaters on the site representing a vast array of biases and perspectives all simultaneously telling you that you lost because you debated poorly, your claims to bias are nothing more than vain tantrum of a child who refuses to recognize that they might have, at the very least, failed to communicate their logic effectively.
I'm creating my own debate on a very similar resolution today just to show you that the problem isn't bias, the problem is that you're an idiot.
Alright. Thanks for letting me know!
I moreso meant if 2 weeks was too little, we could do 1 month. 2 weeks is my preference. I'd at least like 15K characters at very minimum. 10K just ain't enough.
If you'd like to make a forum post where the community can comment, I'd accept that.
I don't want to give up definitions so much as I do think that the entire debate is about arguing definitions? Like, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how you could give an unambiguous definition of 'woman' that does not also intrinsically make one side of the debate a truism (unless you mean 'trans woman', which I'd be fine with agreeing on a definition to that).
Whiteflame is fine with me. Lance said Slainte is busy, so we can knock Slainte off the list. You can add 1-round forfeit = autoloss if you want.
Ignoratio elenchi is inherently already a problem since proving a point irrelevant to the resolution does nothing to advance your case, so I don't see why removing it is important (and also the relevance of something can also be up for debate).
I'm down. We can discuss an exact resolution in dms if you want.
All good, homie.
As for the debate, I add 'makes more sense' because I would prefer for it to be set in stone exactly WHY we should do this. I'm okay with changing the wording to something along the lines of "It is more reasonable/useful." These are somewhat subjective metrics in terms of how you can prove when something is more reasonable or useful, sure, but I would argue that is the case with any on-balance metric.
I'd also like for it to be judges decision. Sir Lancelot, Savant, and Slainte (maybe Barney if he's up to it). I'm open to any judges so long as they're going to vote objectively.
I'm okay with knocking it down to 20k characters and 2 weeks. If it's really a deal-breaker, 1 month is fine.
I would honestly argue that the entire point of this debate is to argue definitions (specifically where, of two definitions, which is more reasonable), so unless we choose an ambiguous definition, I would struggle to see where that would apply. Do you have any examples?
Does this all sound good?
I did (every [1][2][3] I typed, the number was a hyperlink).
Wasn't aware that some people couldn't see the hyperlinks. Thanks for clarifying. I'll link all my sources in the comments next time.
Is your vote implying I did not use any sources? I don't mean to be accusatory, I'm just somewhat confused.
I am interested. I'd like to give this topic the justice it deserves.
1 week argument time, 25k max characters. I'd reword the resolution to "It, on balance, makes more sense to classify trans women as women than to classify trans women as men."
Damnit! How could I miss that?!
I assumed this debate would be an easy noob-snipe (didn't end up being particularly easy as I may have hoped). I crafted my arguments accordingly lazily (if that wasn't evident from the fact I rarely used half the character count and did all of my arguments in less than 24 hours).
I'd like to do this debate again to properly demonstrate my position. Ideally against a different opponent with a longer max character count and longer argument time.
On another note: I welcome Rieka to the site. Hope this debate is the first of many for them.
The only position I respect
I think this would be better if you specified beliefs or values.
Beliefs would make this a truism. Values would be an actual debate.
12 hours time for argument is incredibly short. It needs to be 2 days at least.
What, in exact terms, is the debate here?
Is this debate meant to be something along the lines of "Peace cannot be attained and sustained through war"?
I'd say this debate is missing the critical distinction between what it means to be 'explained' and 'explained sufficiently'.
You can explain anything. That doesn't mean it's a good explanation.
I'd take this debate.
"You cannot interpret the metaphors metaphorically"
very interesting rules
Lower the rating required and I'll accept.
"your arguments kinda suck ngl." how will bones ever recover from this??
I in no way expect to win this debate. I feel as though the bias on this site alone would render that an impossibility, though I'm open to being surprised.
Nevertheless, thank you for this debate. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did! You're truly deserving of that 100% winrate.
No worries! I'm grateful for your kindness nonetheless.
Cope harder
I agree. Your comment effectively summarizes all my hesitation to debate this particular resolution (I don't expect to win tbh, but it's fun nonetheless).
I find Novice's vote to be as ironic as it is unsurprising
I've decided I'm good for a third round, but I would like to keep the 3rd round under 7.5k-10k characters if you're okay with that. Thanks again
RMM, Google the definition of 'woman'. It's just an adult female.
Language is defined by its users and not its scholars. I'm curious how you think this is 'heteronormative', and I find it rich that you say that as a straight person to a gay person. I can attach a big "says who?" to everything you just said, but even if you could provide a satisfactory answer, it still wouldn't change the fact that 99.99999% of people use them effectively interchangeably.
The closest difference you'll get is that a woman is an adult female. Next to nobody differentiates between these terms on the basis of sex or gender roles.
This entire conversation about if woman and female mean the same thing is utterly pointless. You know what I was trying to say when I was talking with Bones in the comments of the previous debate. Regardless of which of us is correct, there is fundamentally no difference in anything I've said.
I believe I'll be fine for now, but I'll message you after my first round speech if I think that's necessary (I'd say my 2nd round speech, but that might screw you over). Thanks for your consideration!
This will probably be my last debate on this site for a while. Figured I'd ought to conduct my second absence with a bit more order and a bit less forfeiting.
If saying 'woman' and 'female' are not synonyms according to almost every English speaker is the hill you want to die on, be my guest.
RMM automatically wins this
I accept. I request 20k words and 14 days per argument, but I don't mind doing 15k and 7 days (just like this debate) if that's an issue.
Still not really my comfort zone, but I suppose challenging yourself is important, eh? I guess I was hesitant solely because I haven't ever seen a need to choose between either gender or sex for the definition. I always figured 'female' and 'biological female' could coexist while both conveying necessary, relevant information.
I still prefer my wording of the resolution (gender is a more useful way to define male or female than biological sex), but since we agree that definitions should be based on what is most useful, I don't foresee that causing any problems. All in good faith, after all.
"I'll think about modifying the Resolution to something which better suits the use of our discussion."
Sure. Sounds good to me! Let me know what you come up with. I look forward to it.
I'm also ready to debate you on any of the potential resolutions I gave you earlier.
"Woman is not the same word or term as female."
They are used interchangeably by almost every English-speaking person. Language is defined by it's users, not by its dictionaries.
If you expect me to cater to the differences between your understanding of what the definition of a 'woman' or 'female' is, in spite of the fact we both know what I'm talking about, you're sorely mistaken.
Read the things I've already said in my comments talking to Bones.
It honestly could just be that the wording of this resolution is less familiar to me as opposed to the specific topics which I am prepared and experienced in debating in. I suppose I also want to avoid any shenanigans relating to trying to decide on a singular definition as opposed to a collection of definitions where one is more useful than the others (not saying I'd expect shenanigans from you, it's just instinctive, I suppose).
My arguments have always been a) trans women are biologically women and b) gender is a more useful way to define male or female than biological sex. This topic almost feels like both at the same time, I suppose? Trying to argue both at the same time feels contradictory, I suppose. I'll think it over some.
If you look at a collection of physical characteristics to define what a woman is (which I agree is how it should be done), you'll find that a lot of trans women fits into that category just as much as cis women do. If you look at a singular definition, you either include trans women or pointlessly exclude cis women.
This is all my argument is.
They are largely compatible, sure, but there exists situations where an endocrinologist would define someone as one sex and a gynecologist would define that same person as a different sex. Neither the endocrinologist nor the gynecologist is wrong. To follow only the endocrinologist's definition or the gynecologists definition is entirely useless and, in many ways, harmful. An endocrinologist needs to give the treatment of a female to anyone who has an estrogen-dependent cancer irrespective of if they have male genitalia. A gynecologist can't refuse to see someone who has a vagina on the grounds that "because they have a male's hormonal profile, they do not need to see a gynecologist."
In that way, it is impossible to come up with a single, sex-based definition of a woman that is useful in the majority of applications. To define a woman based on gender is the only way to have a consistent definition applicable in the majority of contexts.
Any sex-based definition is wholly irrelevant in how someone lives their life, presents themselves, wishes to be referred as, should be treated as, feels like, etc... It provides no useful information and to follow that definition would be less useful and often actively harmful as opposed to using a gender-based definition to answer the question of if someone is a female or not.
What their sex is can be an entirely separate question based on the relevant context.
I have yet to do any research into the transgender swimming ban, so I hesitate to give any definitive opinions, but I've debated before and can present very compelling evidence that trans women post-transition do not possess an advantage over cis women on average (https://www.debateart.com/debates/3104-allowing-transgendered-athletes-mtf-to-compete-in-athletics-against-biological-females-is-unfair). I am not aware of any reason that those arguments would not be applicable to swimming.
If we agree that definitions are based on what is the most useful definition in the context, a 'woman' is someone who identifies as such. Any other definition both a) leaves out cis women unreasonably and b) is less useful in the majority of situations.
Defining a woman by things like her chromosomes is pointless. If you took a woman and changed her chromosomes (women who possess all biological traits of females but have male chromosomes do exist and are not an insignificant portion of the population), she would still be a woman; it would be ridiculous to say otherwise in anything more than a t e c h n i c a l l y correct manner (based on a pointless definition). To use the definition based on chromosomes and to say she is not a woman because of her chromosomes provides effectively no useful information in 99.9% of contexts.
It's my opinion that seeking useful, singular, absolute definitions for abstract concepts is an exercise in futility. You can't create a sex-based definition for 'female' that does not unreasonably and pointlessly exclude cis women without including trans-women.
I'm definitely down for a debate on a similar topic! However, this resolution is not something I would debate personally.
The definition of something is dependent on what's most useful given the context. An endocrinologist's definition of a woman is someone who has female hormones, whereas a gynecologist's definition is someone who has female genitalia. Despite having two different definitions, neither is incorrect; they are just using the definition that is the most relevant to their profession.
Trying to create a blanket definition of a female is impossible, neither of us could create an argument beyond naming situations where the definition being one's gender or one's sex is more relevant, and I would lose because of the bias of this site.
Some resolutions I would consider debating:
THBT on balance, we ought to treat trans people as the gender they identify as in the majority of social situations
THBT in most useful definitions, a trans woman/man is a woman/man
THBT after transitioning, female, trans athletes do not possess an unfair advantage in cisgender women's sports most of the time
Hey, thanks again for the great debate, homie! Hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.
No. I'm still dependent on my parents and thus don't have much control over my diet. I think I'll probably become vegetarian or vegan later in my life, though.
I created this debate to prove a point to Novice, that being that, even if I lose this debate, this debate is not inherently unwinnable and I would perform significantly better and could present an actual argument that would stand up to scrutiny. Him being completely swept by RMM was the result of poor debating, not the debate topic or bias.
The feeling's mutual! I've quite enjoyed debating with you.
The whiplash I got when I saw that username
I'm sorry for taking so long to post what was essentially just a copy-paste. I've been very busy as of late.
I understand your thought process, but I figured that my definitions were sufficient because of the implication that there currently and into the foreseeable future is a need ("if there is NO LONGER a need"). If there is not a need presently and into the foreseeable future (excluding COVID-19, which is the obvious reason), I believed the resolution would fail because it doesn't meet the definition of indefinitely. I thought the resolution would then just be "is there a need for mask mandates currently and as far as we can reasonably see into the future (even if COVID-19 dies out)," but I can see how the definition could be abused.
That's my mistake and I thank you for pointing that out to me.
It was effectively a concession, I believe.
I'll compromise at 15k and 2 weeks.
Stay mad
ADoL doesn't debate as to avoid the ad populum fallacy.
If you stop debating, it will be to avoid recognizing that you could even in some minor way improved your debating.
As a trans person having to justify my own existence regularly on this site that's heavily biased against me, I can tell you that it's bias plays a factor, but it's not insurmountable. When you have half a dozen people including the most active and reputable debaters on the site representing a vast array of biases and perspectives all simultaneously telling you that you lost because you debated poorly, your claims to bias are nothing more than vain tantrum of a child who refuses to recognize that they might have, at the very least, failed to communicate their logic effectively.
I'm creating my own debate on a very similar resolution today just to show you that the problem isn't bias, the problem is that you're an idiot.
I want to vote on this debate, but I fear that reading through more than a few paragraphs would obliterate my sanity.
Challenge sent.