Total votes: 20
Con argues strictly. Classic anti-gun arguments. Even though i agree with Con's position, I can't think of any argument that Pro forgets to make for defending his (the higher-difficulty position). It might even be that the wording of the topic "Gun rights" "More anti-gun regulations" narrow Con's options. And Pro doesn't forget to take advantage about this either.
Con argues convincingly but so does pro, with arguments which appeal to both sides (guns/noguns). Pro grabs the reader's attention by defending the difficult position so well but that should not cause one to ignore the arguments of the other side, also as good but standing on an easier position.
mharman is creative and keeps his arguments inside the premises of the chess game whereas lancelot quickly deviates from the resolution with obvious ad hominem attacks.
mharman maintains a clear convincing position and makes clear that the damages inflicted along his path to glory are not personal but rather necessities of the game.
Lancelot's arguments look more directed to the individual than to the figure making clear that his long term ambitions consist of hatred and his perception of success consists only of the will to bringing down an individual.
Therefore Pro's arguments are to me, more convincing.
Note: Quotations are those inside double apostrophes.
Round 1:
Pro:
Presents his argument objectively on the basis of physical strength and clearly outlines how biological men have considerable physical advantage to biological women. Provides sources.
On his second point he argues from an ethical standpoint. Also provides sources from real instances. Although only rare occurrences which do not generalize the argument.
Con:
Opens with a social argument about promoting inclusion as the most important goal of sports. Which barely stands since the inclusion of TW in sports has given rise to many controversies.
Non-endurance-based sports- a valid argument that physical and ethical controversies do not reasonably apply to NEBS.
First rebuttal: disregards sources saying - “This point is simply irrelevant. Both studies discuss differences between males and females in strength and power; no one contests that males on average fare better in those categories.”
When both sources clearly state that biological men showed better physical performance.
Second rebuttal: “discomfort alone is not a compelling reason to exclude someone from sport.” “but provide no evidence that most people were uncomfortable with her in changing rooms—so this can be disregarded.”
Reasonable since pro did indeed only provide sources from individual rare occurrences.
Round 2:
Pro:
“Con has failed to provide sufficient reasoning or examples his point -" allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits without sufficient social harm"”
True
“While the motion refers to mainstream physical sports where fairness is contested, they....”
The motion is not clearly stated to be addressing only physical sports.
Sticks to individual stories which do not generalize the matter.
“...With this logic, forget about restricting TW alone.
Let's allow grown men to compete with all females. Because we all know that, "the satisfaction and fulfillment they gain plausibly outweighs the discomfort of many others on utility grounds".”
Morally challenging argument but slightly deviating from the topic. Because one would have to assume men and trans-women belong to the same social group, which by the resolution alone, they are not to be regarded that way.
Con: “"If (i) allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits, (ii) without sufficient social harm, then they should be allowed to compete. Since both (i) and (ii) are true, TW should be allowed to compete."”
Sticks to his previous point but does not provide reasoning or sources on why or whether i and ii are true.
“Whether or not, on average, males are stronger than women is also irrelevant. What matters is whether the biological markers TW retain after HRT are significant enough to create an unfair performance advantage in a given sport. This has not been shown.”
Again, dismisses the source.
Although the source clearly states that the changes after HRT are ‘modest’ In TW, and “…the TW generally maintained their strength levels.” .
Suggesting that con might not have read the source provided.
Adds: “Pro does not contest [1], which morally amounts to a concession.”
Easy cowboy.
Unbacked assertion while reality suggests the contrary:
“allowing TW to compete with BW promotes social inclusion, challenges gender-based discrimination, and affirms the dignity and identity of trans individuals in public life.”
“…and even if they did, it would not establish that they do so to a degree that gives them a meaningful competitive advantage.”
Well, small differences matter in sports and claiming that TW are required to undergo ‘years’ of HRT without a valid source does not make an argument.
Pro provided a source about a 12-month therapy which backs his argument.
Round 3:
Pro:
“ The motion is understood — by any reasonable person debating in good faith — to focus on the contested terrain: mainstream competitive physical sports......”
Even though the resolution is indeed understood. A logical argument is not to be dismissed.
Con:
“Pro asserted that TW have an unfair performance advantage in certain sports. I can remain agnostic on this question, since there are sports in which they lack such an advantage...!”
Agnosticism does not make an argument for debates. Pro has indeed provided data and sources on that whereas con has only countered with a personal assertion. Data is also required for such delicate matters.
My vote:
The rest of the debate consists of repetition of arguments and personal disputes.
While both opponents have made comparable arguments, only one of them has backed them with sources. Which is Pro.
Con shows disregard and also makes a couple of assertions which are either not compatible with reality or are not backed by data.
Pro also dismisses one of con’s arguments as ‘dishonest’.
This debate only leans on Pro’s side source-wise.
forfeiture
While it is a complete forfeiture by pro, i will adress his first argument:
begins with the classic- "there has to be a creator" and ends with- "That's my first argument. As a muslim, I believe god sent down books for us to learn & live our lives by. The Quran is the only sound one. The bible has clear discrepancies that don't make sense. Furthermore, how can god even be a man? "
Claims that the bible has mistakes but does not adress any.
And then the classic atheist argument: ". Qur’an came from Allah. Given that the first part of your proposition has not beenshown to be true (The cosmological argument) then we cannot conclude that the Qur’ancame from Allah."
No proof no fact.
Then pro forfeits.
Pro ignores all the english dictionary just by questioning this topic.
Con provides the right definitions clearly outlining the differences between pizza and salad.
My 3rd attempt to vote on a debate topic which is pretty clear to be misunderstood by con but he keeps reporting my vote because he might have the illusion that he won this.
Reason: Pro starts by explaining the modal ontological argument. step by step. And also adresses common objections.
Con: Starts by suggesting that he might not understand a part of the MOA.
"This is a premise I have a problem with, but that may be just because I don't understand your wording of it completely. Currently in this syllogism, we've only established that God exists in the world of thought, or hypothetical worlds. However this means that God isn't actually real, and it's actually God. You've established that God must exist in the real world in order to be God, but that implies that a "God" existing in thought simply isn't God rather than necessitating God's existence. "
Then again continues with a false analogy and battles with the wording of the MOA:
"Also, this premise rests on the assumption that the universe is infinite. If you have an infinite amount of monkeys on typewriters or an infinite amount of time, then yes, they will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. However you haven't proven that the universe is infinite in either time or space. In a set of infinite numbers, the number 12 is a necessary being, but in a set of the numbers 1-5 it is an impossible being. Likewise with the universe, the possibility of God doesn't directly translate to his existence in any possible worlds."
When it is clear that no one in this debate claims for an infinite universe but rather 'infinite possible universes'.
After having made a long, weak argument and having suggested multiple times that he does not understand the topic, he closes with a premise of the MOA saying it gets us nowhere, without countering it with a logical argument:
"The whole syllogism is essentially saying "If God exists, then God must exist" which is tautologically true, and gets us nowhere."
Then again suggests himself that he is not understanding the argument:
"This is the part you didn't explain very well, and I still don't quite understand. God is logically coherent, but that doesn't necessitate his existence. The Padres winning the world series is logically coherent but as a long suffering fan, I can tell you that it hasn't happened. "
Starts his next argument quite well for a brief moment: "A possible thing cannot go from possible to existence without removing the fog of ignorance. Using meer logic we can't make a possible being necessary, because as a quality of being possible, it must be possible that it does not exist."
Then in the end he is once more blessed by the bliss of ignorance: "The problem is that P being possible does not necessitate it existing in at least one world. We've been over this, if P is "possibly real" then by definition it must also be "possibly unreal", otherwise it automatically becomes necessary. There does not have to be a world where P exists, because as you stated, P is "possible". That means that it's also a possibility that P exists in no worlds. Since P is possible, it cannot then be necessary. If something is necessary, then there is 100% chance it exists, but if it is possible, then the possibility of existence must be less than 100%. Possibility of existence cannot equal 100 and a non-100 number at the same time. "
Showing clearly that he has misunderstood the modal possibility.
The reason why this is not a tie: This debate centers on the MOA being sound. Pro presents it, clearly. Adresses common objections. Explains the modal possibility logic multiple times to con. He has provided the arguments on why the MOA is indeed sound.
Con has the duty to show that it is not. Unfortunately he cannot do so because he is stuck to trying to understand the topic throughout the debate and not countering.
Pro- starts with the definition and key features. "Democracy holds individuals in power accountable for their actions and equally disperses power between populations in form of voting and rights. Democracy allows representation of the civilians as a whole rather than opinions of groups in power. This significantly reduces abuse.".
Con- "Fascism can be good and Authoritarianism is necessary.".- Makes a statement Which is not relevant to his opponent's argument.
Continues to misrepresent the term:
"Democracy blackmails regularly. It has authoritarian laws and enforces them in authoritarian manner.
There is no such thing as a non aithoritarian regime." Mistaking it for a dictatorship.
"If I tell you I am liberal and then handcuff you for offending someone, am I actually liberal?
If I tell you this is a free coubtry and force you against your will to not be nude and also to bake a cake for a gay wedding against your will because you cannot legally deny the gay couple your services, is that really a free country?" Also irrelevant to the actual term on which this debate is centered.
Pro continues to adress all his points accordingly- "There are many levels to being liberal, just as there are of being conservative. There is not one set left, and there is not one set right.
If someone such as yourself is a FAR left extremist, then sure, you would not be liberal in that view.
If someone is liberal but not an extremist, who respects other people's views without extremism, then you would be liberal ion that view."
"Taking sexism into account, I would argue that women have more social power over men in today's society. For instance, if a divorce occurs, the man is legally obligated to remain in support of the mother and child through child support, with serious repercussions if not payed.
Men have gone into jail for lifetime after a mere allegation without evidence by a woman."
Con again points to irrelevant non-democratic societies such as saudi arabia- "The issue is Pro says democracy is the best form of government. This means people who want Sharia dictatorships can show up, settle and vote Sharia dictatorship into power. Naturally, the more a democracy truly is a democracy eventually if 85/97 people want rape legalised, it will be. My opponent says that will never happen but today Saudi and Iran have no age of consent at all and alloed marriages as young as ages I won't type (imagine so young you'd gag thinking of it). Now, the issue is my opponent assumes democracy fixed that. Wrong. Christianity did."
Then turns to defending his religion. wich is not a political system.
"Christianity fixed rape, murder, theft and a lot of issues that Islam thinks it fixed but failed to. Christian dictatorship is a better system than democracy and Christian feudalist dictatorial regimes are the ones that brought human rights to the wordk eventually and also developed faster than the world in many different facets."
"It is not wrong. If my opponent wishes to stop neonazis ever rising he must support a dictatordhip that bans them. Currently most democracies are such dictatorships, proving themselces wrong. However, many dictators of sorts have risen inside democracy.
Submit to Jesus, son of God.
For real. kneel!"
This is a misconduct. Religious rant in a political discussion.
Need i say more after this?
Objectively
Con debates rationaly and also provides sources to defend his position: "Studies by the American Psychological Association and UNICEF have consistently shown that attempts to change a child’s sexuality—whether through control, coercion, or the silence of shame—lead to increased rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide."
"Parents are not moral monarchs.
They are stewards. Guardians. Grown-ups.
And the moment they start using their child’s identity as a battlefield for their insecurities or scripture-based panic—
They lose the right to call that parenting."
"And no, 'intentions' don’t justify actions. Even if parents say it’s out of love, love that demands a child erase who they are isn’t love — it’s ego. It’s about the parent’s discomfort, not the child’s wellbeing." Arguments according to the topic which is centered around ethics.
Whereas Pro uses pseudoethical arguments and also the 'popular opinion' to defend his stance: "Let me introduce you a little word called fear. Now, many parents experience fear from their child every single day. And obviously we can’t stop some things from happening, but they still try to protect whats left. Fear that they will lose it all. Fear that their child won’t make it out alive. Fear that they will never be good parents. According to the Pew Research Centre (2022), 37% of Americans believe same Ge gender relationships are wrong, 46% of people don’t even care, which means that they haven’t even experienced this situation. Now I don’t know if your goal is to shame them into silence, or bring them to understanding, but calling the 37% of people insecure is just a excuse to avoid meaningful engagement."
Both of which are weakness features in a debater perspective.
Next he switches to religious arguments which are unjust in the debate context because everyone must assume that his religion is true just for the sake of continuing the debate.
Quoting Pro: "Now I will start the next argument for round 2 which will be heavily based on religion.
Note that con will also have to make rebuttals based on religion."
Dictations are to be made in the description not during the debate, changing the whole direction of the conversation.
Quoting pro: "Just like me I like guys but I can "choose" to like girls at any moment being something or classifying yourself as something is your choice." You can choose freely which gender you like?
-I have been warned by mods not to make counterarguments when voting. But as a voter i am gonna question the sincerity of this argument.
Quoting con: "An example is that in 2015, a major study published in Psychological Medicine found that identical twins are more likely to both be gay if one is, compared to fraternal twins, pointing to a genetic influence." Good argument, verifiable.
Quoting pro: "What are you getting at? This makes absolutely no sense what does any of those things have to do with this debate right now. Yeah HOW THE HELL is being Lgbtq deeply rooted in biology or psychology your making no sense. And yea it is based on how you are living your life and you live your life with "The choices you make.""
-Tries to disregard a perfectly good argument as-allegedly-irrelevant. Could have easily looked up the study that is being mentioned by con and find out about the biology or psychology.
Quoting pro again: " quotes con: "Furthermore, If being LGBTQ were a choice, why would so many choose a path that often leads to discrimination, exclusion, and even violence?"
Then says: what are you talking about, no literally. Why are you making it seem like if your not LGBTQ your in a straight relationship that involves violence. I mean every day I choose to me straight and non of the stuff you mentioned has every happened to me this path isn't bad you're making it seem that way."
- He completely misunderstands a very logical point raised by con.
Quoting con: "Orientation exists whether or not it’s acted on.
Attraction happens naturally. Exposure may reveal it—but lack of exposure doesn’t erase it."
-very well points out to pro's confusion (wether the choice is acutally being gay or having intercourse with another man).
By arguments this debate is a clear win from con. Pro either intentionally disregards his arguments or does not understand them. Con adresses the topic perfectly well.
Dhaka here focuses only on the dressing code equality even making a statement like this -" Suppressing personality in the name of "unity" often masks institutional discomfort with diversity." related to it. Suppressing personality? If you dress the same as your peers?
Galaxy annihilator, citing obama is not a source or an argument. As obama says...! Obama was a president. Did he conduct a research on the performance of students according to their clothes? However your position-except for being right-is better defended.
Maximus argues from a timeline perspective. If he is talking about time travel: If you go back and kill him you won't be born therefore no one will be there to go back to kill him therefore you get born and grow up to go back and kill him and so on... Boring paradox. Solution: Don't kill.
But then kobayashi argues from a moral standpoint. And he is right. You would spare a lot of suffering.
But that would mess with the timeline so i cannot in my full consciousness agree with kobayashi because i am a fundamentalist. Even in a hypothetical scenario because traveling back in time is not possible.
However....... Let's not pretend that maximus did not have a selfish motive. He did. He did not even make the argument of the paradox. That was me. And i won't vote to my own decision but according to the arguments presented.
So, between both arguments-selfish and heroic- both being moral positions, the hero wins.
Unnecessary long comment for this debate.
Wholesome moment between father and son!
I am sorry that you both wasted so many words and time here. You both ignore the topic start making irrelevant points like: Who spoke more languages, who has more followers, who has been around for more. 21pilots cites some gospel verses and lancelot cites more as an argument. poor krishna is left uncited. plus this debate looks pretty much like 'my prophet is better'. anyways, minimal points made about 'spiritual mentoring'.
Some points about the actual topic and my modest critic:
Lancelot:
"The idea behind this is healthy eating, getting enough sleep, and a moderate amount of exercise will help you to avoid sickness and maintain a peak mindset that shall allow you to live comfortably. To avoid getting burnt out, this is simply a requirement. " -not so much for a spiritual mentor but a standing argument.
"Mastery of the mind will affect all aspects of your life."- same.
Pilots:
"Do people really have the will to learn and understand Krishna’s word?
And if they do, are they actually able to interpret it to others who don’t know him. "- i doubt how many 'christians' have actually read the bible and are able to interpret it...
"Will you believe Elon Musk eating Donald Trump while in a Lamborghini just because of the fact that existence is irrelevant? "- What?
"Krishna emphasizes discipline and detachment - doing your duty without caring about the outcome (misscitation i call but anyway). But Jesus teaches trust, not detachment. In Matthew 6, He says not to worry about your life because God provides."- almost the same things only that one says mental stability is achieved by discipline (Lancelot first argument) and the other says mental stability is achieved by leaving everything to god (makes sense for a believer).
It is clear that- however shallow- lancelot has more logical arguments. Pilots couldve made plenty if he focused on jesus and not comparing the 2.
I dont know who to choose as a 'better' one but i will judge based on the few arguments that are actually related to the topic.
Topic: it is highly irrational to make promises
"Highly". Should've just said irrational to have more chance for defence (Joke). You still defend very well, but your arguments are more philosophical and very fundamental. Respectable from my side, but easy to counter. Because promises actually have a function in society and this fact alone gives them 'rationality'. Now, wether it is irrational to actually make them, depends. To a philosopher who can't stand taking 'average human' actions because he understands the absurdity of reality and rebels and bla bla..., it would be HIGHLY irrational. But to the average homosapien, no, very functional and also affirming to other traits such as: Integrity, commitment, foresight, etc.
Sorry for turning this into my own argument. Shortly, your arguments do not stand for this particular statement.
Very nice, brief and accurate arguments from con.
Lucystarfire as always doesn't even try to make an argument. But pro just proposes an incredibly absurd topic that it isn't even possible to defend by argument. Anyways, another missed win from lucystarfire.
Nice debate topic with potential and a lot of room for arguments. It is clear that lucystarfire is either trying to waste everyone's time or just thinks he/she is too smart for this platform and makes short meaningless arguments in a 'gottcha' way. This debate makes no exception. I understand why one tries to connect free will to good and bad, but to fail so miserably? You could have made a very good argument but instead try to be short and dumb. I started to read this and got surprised by how you even thought of that (based on your arguments in our previous debate), but then it turns into a dumb rambilng. You lack intellect lucystarfire. Maybe read a couple books or at least think before writing, in the rare occasion that you try to really engage in a debate. Con wins this debate only by trying to at least make a coherent argument. Without mentioning that he makes a good one.