Nyxified

Like... horse riding?

I suppose that makes sense, though.

Yes, we should. However, with regards to trans people participating in professional sports, it's not necessary to bring up intersex people except in the case of people believing it is impossible to go from one biological sex to the other, as the proof for that is, in some part, reliant on the case of intersex people.

The figure you're mentioning is 2% and was calculated in a way that does not refer to chromosomes, which is what I was referring to when responding to Intelligence_06. Some experts would disagree, claiming that sex is determined by chromosomes, but that is far from an undisputed claim and is an unnecessary, blatant attempt to try and categorize that of which can't be put into neat little boxes, in my opinion. Even if it's a valid way of distinguishing things, it's meaningless as I mentioned prior.

The debate I linked is good for info about this, but it must be annoying dealing with homophobia regularly. :/

Well, maybe it would best to start with where you think your weaknesses lie and then we could elaborate on how we think you could improve on those things if needed?

Partially a cop-out because I don't know enough about you as a debater yet lmao, but I do think it'd be helpful.

Users
Theweakeredge

Undefeatable
fauxlaw

Confession

Environmental protection vs resource extraction

Violent revolution is a just response

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ this video explains it well enough

I don't see humanity uniting around the cause of defeating climate change either.

But so long as we take it upon ourselves to fight twice as hard, we need not those who ignore the suffering of our Earth.

Saw the concept of the virus mutating into a stronger one due to vaccines come up in this thread. It's not 'incorrect' that immunity to the virus has, in some specific cases, made certain viruses even more dangerous to those who aren't vaccinated (I've not seen anything that shows a virus beginning to overcome the vaccine due to vaccinated people).

The problem is that you wanna know what cause the virus to mutate into a stronger one that will also directly harm people who are vaccinated as well? Perhaps the virus spreading? Spreading 90% of the time to people who aren't vaccinated? 

Examples from one singular vaccine used by chickens isn't enough for me to believe half of the claims made tbh.

Corporations kill people both directly and indirectly and get away with it with effectively no consequence repeatedly.

In that vein, at least, yeah. Rich people do get away with murder all the time.

During the pandemic, a lot of the debate tournaments I was in have been done over Discord/Zoom, so I'd be very excited to do something like this. Debating by speaking and debating by typing are two entirely different ball games.

Is there a debate format we're going for, or?

Correction: When they were of the male sex.

Using the one time I misspoke as the only way to criticize the position I hold sums up the position of the counterfactual nicely.

I don't mean to brush you off in saying this, rather it's best way to answer the question, but the debate I linked earlier which I'll also link here has the best introductory arguments I could give as to why my answer is resoundingly yes. I have yet to see any reason that the advantage a trans woman might have on average would be significantly more compared to any given cis athlete than would be seen between two cis athletes that is also not mitigated by the disadvantages (ex: oxygen requirements vs haemoglobin in the body). There's many examples of trans female athletes losing to cis female athletes, sometimes losing significantly more than when they were men (like in the case of Fallon Fox).

*Thinking emoji*

Correct as it may be to say that alternative home environments for children statistically lead to a number of problems for the child and for the parent, to resoundingly denounce anything that differs from the norm is unfair. Having kids when you're too young or too poor to properly raise a child is bad in almost every case, and it should be avoided when possible, absolutely, but to claim that having step/single parents is inferior is where I start to disagree.

If a parent has an abusive partner and chooses to leave that partner and take the child with them, in that situation, it is very plausible that this situation is best for the parent and the child. It'd be great if the abuse wasn't present, and having only one parent puts the child and the parent at risk in the future, but it's the only reasonable option in that scenario. Similarly, if a woman becomes pregnant and then their partner leaves them, they effectively have no say in the matter. What are they supposed to do about it?

I have no qualms when it comes to pointing out these statistics, with mentioning that one-parent homes for example lead to less successful and happy kids, but I have a problem when we use those stats to say that certain home environments are inferior, because it leaves out so much of the situation. It just feels like rubbing salt in the wound to say "this home environment is not ideal and is inferior" when people in these situations probably know that already. The implication that the ideal environment for a child is the same one that the parent of that child may have had to leave to escape abuse is one that is not only deeply uncomfortable, but unjust.

Yeah. My criticism would more so relate to it being an anarcho-capitalist's dream, but I understand what you mean.

I highly recommend the video I linked as well.

You hadn't even mentioned angles, which frankly I'd find hard to quantify (though I know a little about the angle of bones/sockets). If I'm misinformed, I'd love to inform myself.

The ratios are basically identical if you run them through a calculator. Unless a ratio of 43:100 is somehow vastly different from a ratio of 44:100. I also fail to see how exactly trans women would have some significant advantage because of this.

I've never heard of raw hand size vs arm ratios, but let's look at the data of men vs women, shall we?

Forearm length: 25.4cm vs 23.5cm (8% advantage)

Hand length: 18.9cm vs 17.2cm (10% advantage)

Hand width: 8.4cm vs 7.4cm (14% advantage)

(11% advantage on average)

You're describing an 11% difference in men. The increased size in men is due to larger muscle and larger bones. Trans women after feminizing hormone therapy do not have an advantage in physical exercises, suggesting they'd more than likely have a similar size of muscle (especially when combined with redistribution of fat/muscle due to FHT/HRT), which if it even came close to halving the 11% advantage would make it so negligible it's hardly worth mentioning.

Further still, while skeletal size cannot be reduced, hormone replacement therapy reduces the amount of haemoglobin in the body and thus the amount of oxygen the body can transport while the amount of oxygen needed for that skeletal system remains constant. This either negates the advantage or makes it a disadvantage.

HRT changes the brain, and also I have no idea from what source or what way of measuring you got that claim, but that doesn't really say much without a figure behind it.

Well, here's the problem with chromosomes: Anywhere between 0.01% and 2% (depends who you ask) have chromosomes that are either not XX/XY, or are XX/XY, but occurs in an otherwise male/female person. Data is hard to come by, because it's difficult to assess the prevalence of these conditions when somewhere between a considerable portion and a majority will live their entire life without knowing about it/getting diagnosed. Yes, these constitute a fiftieth at most (if our data is correct), but they're far from a fringe case that doesn't deserve to influence our understanding.

There are two main reasons chromosomes don't matter. The first is that, just as how a woman being born without a uterus doesn't make her non-binary, one singular sex characteristic cannot be the defining factor. If we checked Usain Bolt's chromosomes and found out he has XX chromosomes, that doesn't suddenly make him a woman, nor does it mean he should be allowed to compete against women unless he undergoes HRT.

The second is that chromosomes, even though yes, they are usually XY for men and usually XX for women, effectively determine nothing. To quote Pediaa.com (https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-xx-and-xy-chromosomes/ ):

It's irrelevant. There's no function to separating people based on their chromosomes when you also remember the previous things I outlined. Yes, chromosomes are unchangeable, but using it to try and make sweeping claims about sex and biology just leaves you with the same issue as when you do the same with every other sex characteristic: you unfairly, unreasonably exclude people in a way that doesn't make sense.

Biological sex is a spectrum of sex characteristics that are associated with either end of the gradient, and chromosomes are one of the hundreds of factors involved in that spectrum (unimportant as they may be to daily life). Especially with the arguments from the debate I linked earlier, it doesn't seem to me to make sense to segregate sports based on chromosomes. The reason sports are divided between male and female is because of their difference in capability due to the nature of their sex characteristics, but trans females and trans men are completely able to adopt the relevant sex characteristics of their preferred gender and thus should be allowed to compete in my opinion.

Trans person here. I've done an entire debate on if a trans female can compete in athletics against a cis female fairly (obviously they can after HRT, imo) (https://www.debateart.com/debates/3104-allowing-transgendered-athletes-mtf-to-compete-in-athletics-against-biological-females-is-unfair )  just in case anyone would want to see the scientific evidence for that position.

Your post isn't incorrect in the sense that someone who still has the physical capacity of a male shouldn't be allowed to compete against females. The issue I'd raise with this, however, is that this isn't happening, and/or if it were/is happening, I think we would be/are all in agreement that it's unfair. I feel as though (not with regards to myself personally) that it just further isolates trans people when we could instead be focusing on actually trying to give trans athletes the hormones they need to be able to compete, but can't get.

Also, chromosomes don't matter. If your position is that XX chromosomes should only compete against XX chromosomes and XY with XY, that's an entirely separate conversation that I'd still love to have if needed. A woman can be a woman regardless of chromosomes and can simultaneously have a similar physical ability to other females regardless of chromosomes.

Yeah, it'd be nice to have, but it's definitely not a must. When I copy paste from Google Docs, it just counts it as ~3 spaces for each one. It works, of course, but if you're like me and always end up somehow going over the 30,000 character limit without fail, that's 3 too many lmao.

I recommend reading this

Hey, is it possible to implement indents into the text field for debates? It's not a big deal, but it does bother me a little bit not being able to lmao.

Y'know what? Good post. Retweet.

They told me to stay for 15 minutes after I got my first and second dose, and I did.

I don't know if this is just a Canadian thing, but did you never get vaccinated at school? They always monitored you afterwards, so this seems fairly normal to me.

Found this when looking at one of Wylted's ~interesting~ theories. It talks about what exactly herd immunity is. I was wrong (in some ways) when I gave a figure of 95% because the percentage needed for herd immunity (based on the 'R number' for COVID-19) is actually between 50-75%. 

https://theconversation.com/we-may-never-achieve-long-term-global-herd-immunity-for-covid-but-if-were-all-vaccinated-well-be-safe-from-the-worst-159821 .

The above, however, uses information that is likely from before the delta variant began to spread (sources are from March, 2021, the same month it had JUST begun to spread in the US [can't confirm since I only took a quick look at the sources, so it's just a guess]). If delta is 50-60% more infectious, meaning it has a reproduction rate/R number of ~3-6, we would need a prevention rate of 67% - 83%. If everyone were to get vaccinated, based on the information of vaccine's effectiveness against Delta, that would be achievable. We just need to get everyone vaccinated before it mutates to get any worse.

I agree that black people, if they have statistically lower IQs on average, only have a lower IQ on average because of conditions related to their early life or their current life. I'd imagine the whole ~poverty~ part of things has a tendency to lower IQ scores fairly significantly.

Legality does not equate to morality. Just because something is a law doesn't mean that it's just, and often times laws are incredibly unjust. The process of democracy, thorough as it may be, takes forever to realize a law makes no sense and repeal it. Take it from me: A gay, transgender Canadian where both gays and transgender people are barred from donating blood under certain circumstances that don't apply to straight, cis people.

The laws where the breaking of them counts 'acceptable' and 'non-acceptable' depends on the beliefs person. We all make choices based on our sense of righteousness and accept the consequences, and that's what I would turn to in this instance.

This person's brain could swirl around inside a peanut for a thousand years without ever touching the sides, but also this is the funniest criticism I have ever seen of the LGBTQ (BGLQT?) movement in my entire life.

Anything made by Paradox Interactive.

Just buy the base game and play multiplayer to get access to the DLC tho. Straight up, the $200 of DLC that are necessary for a good experience is NOT worth it, but the games themselves are SO good (when they work).

Perhaps it doesn't fit the original purpose, but realistically, what else do we call them? I definitely am also of the belief that they aren't a very viable idea, especially if they become widespread and poorer countries lacking the infrastructure might end up forced to depend on other currencies.

For anyone curious about how cryptocurrency actually works, I'd recommend this video from 3Blue1Brown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC-nXj3Ng4 .

I was considering making a debate about this at one point, but I decided not to for whatever reason (most likely lack of confidence). When it comes to proof-of-work, there's no way for anyone to create a block that contains a transaction that didn't happen, send out that block to only one entity (if you were trying to fool them into thinking you had sent payment, for example), and always have a longer-block chain (validity is always based on the longest block-chain) unless you controlled over 50% (let's say 52%) of the computing power involved in mining the particular crypto.

If you controlled over 52%, you would, per the law of big numbers, be capable of finding the hash needed enough that your block-chain that contains the fraudulent transaction that you never broadcast to anyone but the person you're attempting to deceive faster than anyone else on average and would be able to make it seem like your block-chain is the valid one. This isn't possible with things like bitcoin (as far as I know), but what if we reached a point where a government managed to somehow, maybe by preventing mining from anyone but the government (if that's even possible), control said 52%? They would be able to have complete control over the currency and be able to buy things without even having to spend currency as long as they hold the longest block-chain for long enough.

Having immaterial currency backed by a nation-state has worrisome implications for their ability to control money as well. If the government managed to have complete control over the currency, there's nothing stopping them from declaring all their currency worthless, forcing people to spend it in a certain period of time,  taking it away from people without even needing to be near them or their assets, etc...

I am very open to the possibility of being wrong in a lot of things that I said. It's been a while since I researched it, but I'd be curious if anyone else has similar or differing thoughts on nationally-backed crypto, especially with China's creation of one.

Thank you for giving this source. I wasn't aware of this until now, so I sincerely appreciate it!

The amount of times Wylted has talked about "The six million figure" boggles my mind.

There were 6 million Jewish people around the time WW1 ended.

There were more than 6 million Jewish people when the holocaust happened (there were 9.5 million in 1933. Presumably a good few more in 1939, I am just lazy and don't wanna look up a specific source for that year).

Most of them died.

This really depends who you ask on what counts as socialism. Redistribution of wealth is a common theme in the Nordic countries, which are considered to be socially democratic by many. The person in the Quora post is clearly talking about communism, which is a form of socialism, but I fail to see their point in distinguishing between redistribution of wealth and redistribution of means/property. The only difference between the two would seem to be about if redistribution happens before or after profit is generated.

Of course, redistribution of wealth in these countries goes nowhere near what they describe as a socialist system, but the idea seems to be the same (taking from the top 50% and giving to the 50% to make society more equal) except for the degree that it aims to go (social democracy doesn't aim for complete equality).

Well, the thing is that nobody is saying it's your fault.

(All of the hypotheticals I present are for the sake of argument. Although I believe them to be true, if they are true can come later, I'd just like to establish this first.)

If it were true that nonwhites have a disadvantage because of the systems of oppression that once existed because of white people that didn't allow them to inherit the same wealth and power as whites and may still exist, then on average/as a group, white people benefit from the oppression their ancestors were the cause of because they inherited at least some of that wealth and power.

Moreover, if that is true then, on average/as a group, black people suffer from said oppression and reparations make sense, because white people would be in a worse position if that oppression had not occurred, and so it is not taking away from you, because you, in a just world, would be in the same place reparations ideally would leave you anyways. This is a hypothetical that leaves a lot of assumptions and questions (how do we make sure that every white person has benefited from oppression and they pay the amount their advantage has allowed them to have?), but if the premises are true, it seems, to me, self evident that reparations in a perfect world make sense.

If we can agree on that, then we only need to ask if we live in an equitable world where all people have the same ability to succeed, and, if they don't, if it's viable to do something to fix it through reparations or other means.

That trolley track problem still stumps me, haha. It's a topic I view as far too based in non-objective philosophy, something which I am not very well versed in.

I agree with you, though. Breaking barriers is probably the most useful form of debate. When it comes to debating, understanding the weakpoint in an opponent's argument that deconstructs the whole argument is probably not only the most important ability debate can develop, but also the most satisfying.

I think that Dr. Franklin's has an incredible amount of variety in the debate topics he covers. It seems clear to me he doesn't worry about being an expert in every subject he debates. It's a level of confidence and a lack of the fear of losing that allows for constructive debate that many, including myself, could strive to learn from.

Absolutely. As much as I hate to say it, I would not be in any way surprised if in Canada (where I live) we experienced a 4th wave. At least it makes it more difficult to spread, so I'm just praying a mutation that beats all our vaccines doesn't occur. It's unlikely, though, I'm led to believe.

Well, if we assume that the 6 Yankees were given the Pfizer vaccine and they were infected with the Delta variant, that would be a 37.5% rate of the vaccine not preventing the spread of COVID-19. However, that's fully consistent with the data surrounding Pfizer and the Delta variant (where a 36% rate would be expected) according to the following: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/07/13/how-well-does-the-pfizer-vaccine-protect-against-the-delta-variant-heres-what-we-know/?sh=1628e2c0ff33 . I will admit, there are sources that think the number isn't 64%, but rather 80%. There's also consistent data that shows AstraZeneca has a breakthrough rate of 30-40% ( https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-covid-vaccine-effectiveness-protection-pfizer-moderna-astrazeneca-2021-7?op=1 ).

We would need to know more about these specific cases before we could draw conclusions. Such as: what vaccine(s) did they get? How far apart were first and second dose? How long had it been since their second dose? How strictly were these clusters adhering to COVID-19 restrictions between each other? Etc... It is equally as likely that the Yankees are an outlier and that the rate seen by the house democrats in Texas is more reasonable to expect.

After all, herd immunity requires 95% of people to be immune against the virus, which such high breakthrough rates make fairly challenging, but COVID-19 vaccines still have a critical role in lowering the severity of the case significantly.

I'm reading through your debate with Fruit_Inspector on the big bang right now, and I must say, it's certainly an interesting topic. I feel like I would be too afraid to take on a debate with regards to an event that happened before human life even began, haha. But the debate taught me a few things I didn't know or didn't fully understand.

Out of everything I could think of that would suck when it comes to doing a debate, doing it on an online keyboard in 100 degree weather is probably one of the worst. Props.

I'm curious to hear which debates required you all to do the most research, the most thinking, revision, etc... Please feel free to upload a link to the debate if you can and if you'd like!

For me, the debate I put the most effort into was a prepared resolution for two different rounds of a debate tournament. It was something like "THBT The Chinese System is Better Equipped to Face the Challenges of the Future Than the American System", and a few weeks to prepare arguments for pro and con. So naturally, I made 35 pages worth of research and arguments, researched statistics, read articles, made my own datasets, wrote out a more in depth opinion on individualism and collectivism than I have ever read in my entire life, and it paid off.

Me and my debate partner would've went to the provincials from that tournament, but we got screwed over by a judge in the 3rd round (there were only 4 rounds) and he absolutely tanked our score. I'm still proud of how much effort I put into it, though!

Be careful when it comes to tempting the deity of irony lmao

I understand the concept of reparations, but rather I don't understand the nuances of how it would work, what it would look like, how long it would last, how much it would cost, if it's even the best idea, etc... In general, I'd probably like to hear the perspective of a few black people before I come to an opinion on it.

I don't think it's wrong to say we should try to ensure fairness in society wherever possible IMO, and racial minorities clearly are playing an unfair game. That's really all I can say with confidence.

I do want to say that I don't disagree with the idea of reparations at all. To be honest, I'm very uneducated on the subject, and that's something I should work on.

That's fair. I'm happy to be a test subject if there's anything I can do to help!

I've not been here long, but thanks for all you do for the site nonetheless. <3

I think all I could say has already been said in this topic, but I think I can sum it up like this:

If you think it's a sin or bad or wrong to be gay or trans, don't be gay or trans. It's not a choice, but we'll pretend that it is. Why is it necessary to push your values onto others?

It's objective that 2SLGBTQQIAAPN+ identities exist and are normal. That's all children need to be taught. If you're worried that your kid will become LGBTQ+ because they're taught that LGBTQ+ people exist, the education system is not 'pushing their own values/infringing on religious freedom', you're just manipulating your child to conform to your worldview/religion by limiting their access to information.

Also, if anyone wants someone to break down the passages in the bible quoted by homophobes, hit me up.

Yeah, you're right. He's definitely not incompetent by any measure.

People do inherit genes, but genes aren't the defining role in what you'll be capable of. Yes, they play a part, a considerable part I would even say, but the way their brain develops based on their experiences and the life they live or want to live is much more significant.

I don't think there's anything wrong with inheriting wealth. I'm saying it's wrong to say that Jeff Bezos is inherently more capable by looking at the success of his business and ignoring the fact that he was born into a position of privilege. I guarantee there are people out there who are better businessmen than Bezos who never had the money to get their startup off the ground or were born in a country that wasn't developed enough for the kind of business Amazon is in order for it to get off the ground.

I don't say this with the intent to challenge the general message of your post, but "I think it's fair to say that sensible people of all origins and all skin colour variations, moved on a long time ago"? Slavery's legacy is far from gone and the effects are seen in the lives black people live in many ways.

Say it's wrong to force the present generations to pay for the sins of the past if you want, but don't pretend like the sins of the past don't affect the reality of the present.

Would you be open to accepting volunteers to help with the website and, if so, what kind of qualifications would they need?

I'm nowhere near qualified to do much of, well, anything when it comes to programming yet, but I'd love to help at a time in the future when I'm more capable.