Total votes: 861
Nowhere in the debate does Pro define what a myth is or how we separate a theory that is plausible from one that is mythical.
Pro seems to singularly have an issue with the 'alpha' male and none of the other 5 categories.
Con handles this with ease, expanding on everything including explaining what a chad vs alpha is in this absolutely irrelevant sidetrack of Johnny Bravo as am ondobidual when there are towards 8 billion people alive, we needed to fixate on a cartoon character...
By the end of the debate, it appears that Pro's case is just as absurd as Round 1. Apparently you can fail to be a man altogether, as a man, yet it is wrong to refer to you as a beta male or anything like gamma male if you do.
FF .
Con essentially FF'd without conceding because Con never really gives an original argument of any kind after Round 1 just pastes and quotes between forfeits.
forfeits..............................
f f
troll by Pro, basically FF
concession
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
fffffffffffffffffffffff
FF by Pro, Con gave a single argument.
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
f f
v v
Lancelot's Round 3 is functionally a forfeiture/concession.
I was genuinely going to grade and add up but there is no way to justify voting a tie or a Lancelot win due to the Round 3.
Best Korea debated this like a fucking beast actually, others maybe fail to see it.
The key to a Con victory here is to separate fair from unfair advantages and explore what transwomen have in that regard.
Con irrefutably (Pro cowers and doesn't even rebuke) proves that age, height, strength and all sorts of things are already advantages that we let people of the same sex either exploit or alternatively to not exploit it, we separate based on results, not typological assumptions.
What Con is getting at, the whole debate, is that unless we are to force everyone to have the same bodies, everything is an advantage or disadvantage, so to speak. What defines 'unfair' is up to Pro to clarify, not Con.
Con intentionally never defines unfair and was clever to not do so, this let Pro forget they had to and have nothing to propel/catapult their case from or against as there were no semantics to pivot their burden of proof around.
FF .
Pro's type 4 and type 2 are subtypes if the same type. This is Con's most irrefutable and crucial attack to Pro's case.
Pro never proves that the types are real, he assumes we agree on some baseline level that the types exist. Con points out the lack of proof.
Round 3 is an outright concession, don't report my vote unless Best Korea denies he conceded it.
Con rapped better and dissed harsher.
Pro only did 1 out of 3 rounds
Barney said it
Vaginal entry
What fucking nonsense
Concession
This is a functional FF because the Round 2 from Pro has 0 arguments or rebuttals.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4619/comments/55274
Reason For Decision is in comments.
. .
. .
Con was the only one to argue.
Waiving a sole Round of debate in a 1-Round debate is the equivalent of FF
Only Con gave arguments
Mall the champ.
Neither side defined 'degenerate' nor discussed things relevant to the topic.
FF .
FF .
FF by Pro
It is agonising to me, how free a win this was for Pro even to the very last Round... Yet... Pro... THREW IT OUT THE WINDOW, SPLAT ON THE GROUND LIKE THE DEFINITION OF WHAT A WOMAN IS.
This is the craziest debate on this website actually, if you look at how free a win both sides gave the other. Neither said defined what a woman is in a way that backed their theory.
Con gives examples of males faking womanhoot with surgery, training to artificially impersonate women etc. Pro just concedes and says it's just a differing opinion and that Con even made a good argument.
We have nobody explaining what a woman even is. I am still waiting for what a woman is. Con said 'female voice' but how can there be a female voice unless it'sthe voice associated with XX-chromosome human adults?
That said, Con does win the debate because Pro literally never ever explains what makes a woman real or not. Pro implies pregnancy and chromosomes are the foundation of womanhood but doesn't use a single source (nor does Con unless it's that subtle blue the website did in the worst update of its history).
All I see is absolute gibberish up and down from both debaters. Gibberish from both benefits Con, since we then can presume that trans women mimicking women... somehow makes them real if they have the traits of a woman enough... traits that are defined by what a biological female adult human has right?
Idk. Pro never clarified and Con left it murky. Since I don't have a concrete sourced or expanded definition on what a 'real woman' is, it follows that Con's mimickery argument does hold water. If I mimic something so good that I pass as the real thing then am I not the 'real' thing? If not, why not?
That question never got answered by Pro since Pro didn't explain something else:
How can a woman be a female? What about a female iguana? Is that a woman? Also, what is 'female' if Con is saying it's just the traits that transwomen mimic?
Zedvictor is Con, I must vote it.
There will never be another me.
this website has seriously become a degenerate place. I will be saying goodbye soon.
straight up plagiarism!!!
.........................
Con argued that his liking of cucumbers is a valid reason to leave cucumbers unbanned. Pro waived his only Round.