There are only two genders

Judge: shadyelmansy
Win awarded to: Phos Halas

Judge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: tombos21@gmail.com
Reasoning:
Phew - great debate guys and this was close. REAL Close.

OK with a very broad resolution, you guys ended up forcing this debate around ONE central issue - does the word "GENDER" refer to objective Biology or subjective psychology. There were a few fringe arguments, but these would never win the debate unless you could convince me of this central truth.

PRO asserted that Gender has traditionally referred to Biology, and CON didn't dispute that, although he convinced me that words DO change their meanings over time. CON therefore had to show me that TODAY, that word is used MOST OF THE TIME to refer to the new definition. I accepted CON's submissions from the APA and PRO didn't dispute it so that definition does stand. I couldn't accept the claim that "most dictionaries" also support that definition, because the grammar of that sentance was not clear and there were no sources to back it up. However, again, there was no contest from CON on that one, so overall, the claim that Gender has changed it's use in normal parlance has to stand. This was a big blow to PRO's case.

There were also attempts to convince me of the science. PRO's examples of other similar cases, such as Age, Ethnicity and Species were excellent and convincing. I want to refer back to these in the feedback.
CON's strongest point was the Brown eye one - the biggest problem here was that the majority of your constructive case for this was made in the final round where PRO had no chance to contest it!
Unfortunately, the way debates go, I can't score those points. It's a shame because it was a new argument to me, and I was quite excited to see how it developed.

So the way I saw this debate was, the winner needed to convince me of the definition of "Gender".
From a biological, scientific and commonsense perspective, PRO won this. Unfortunately for them, from a pure dictionary definition perspective, CON won it.

Feedback:
A very narrow win to CON, and from my perspective, this is an underdog win.
I definitely have some feedback, I hope you find it constructive.

BOTH PARTIES:
You guys clearly have some skill at this. For this reason, I think you need to elevate your narratives to the second tier. Currently you are typing your arguments out exactly as they enter your head. This means you start with a quote from your opponent, (and sometimes even a quote from yourself!) and then make your counter argument.
This makes sense in your head, but by the time we get to the final round, it gets really hard to follow your case. It reads quite stilted.
This is definitely a style thing, and sure, some people make it work for them. I think it's an effective way of listing off and then BRIEFLY rebutting a bunch of inconsequential points, but it should always be followed by a bunch of constructive which is at least two thirds of the total.
This takes more skill to do, but it reads much better and I think you guys are capable of doing that.

PRO: For me, you lost this because you didn't contest or even address the sourced evidence that CON provided. A five second google proved to me that CON's assertion that most dictionaries support the APA's definition was, at best flawed, and at worst completely false.
To be clear, you didn't even need to defeat him on that point, you just had to cast enough doubt that it would add weight to your other points, pints which for me, you won convincingly.

Also, just to reiterate the same point I seem to make every time on every debate - DEFINE THE RESOLUTION!
Had you taken the time to do this, you would preempted CON's definition argument without even trying!

Finally, you start your first round by listing off several arguments that CON's position makes. I would be very wary about doing this. Again, this is a "rule" that can get broken in certain circumstances, but generally it's bad practice and sets you up in a losing position. I can explain this in more detail if you like.

Other than that this was a good job. I had you winning this debate in every category except the one that mattered!

CON: Two main issues here. Firstly, as stated above, don't wait til the last round to unleash your best constructive. The last round can't be replied to, so you generally only use it to sum up your case - especially if you are CON. You can definitely try to sneak in the odd little tidbit masquerading as rebuttal, but that's not what happened here. It was too much and too obvious.

Secondly, you saw my praise to PRO for their listing of similar relevant examples - I'll give you the same praise for your listing of similar words that have changed definitions - "GIRL" was especially relevant and a powerful point for you. However, some of your other ones were weak as. Equating changing your name to changing your gender? That was weak and actually made me go back and question some of the others examples you gave. (which held up)
I think you want to be careful about exposing such a weakness at that later stage of the debate.
The irony is that changing you eye colour was an AWESOME example and much more relevant. You totally should have left that one in and taken the other one out. Also in regards to the eye colour one, you should have made the point that the Genetic sequence would disagree with the physical reality in the second round. That would have had WAY more punch and given PRO a much harder job. Introducing that point in the final round makes it look like there is an obvious rebuttal to it.

Great debate guys, and tombos, you should change your handle so you don't look so much like a bot!

---

3 users rated this judgement as constructive

Judge: dpowell3543    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Phos Halas
Reasoning:
I'm voting for Pro because they simply provided better, more factual arguments with more, better and better sources. I would have voted for Con, because their arguments were equally good, but the end of their last round threw it off. They broke their professional attitude and started using ad hominem.

Feedback:
Phos Halas: A few tips for you if you ever do this debate again.
1. All the "therapists" and "doctors" claiming that gender is a social construct don't even practice those fields. Most have either a gender studies degree or no degree at all.
2. Technically, the concept of gender doesn't even actually exist. It was made up in the late 1900's in order to push identity politics.
3. If one looks at the definition of gender in a dictionary it says: "the state of being male or female"
4. Most actual therapists claim that people suffering from gender dysphoria avoid getting the sex change operation because more often than not, it leads to increased depression and suicide rates among the transgender community.
I'm trying to provide you with more talking points to help better rebut any counter arguments made against yours. Also, try to keep it open. Provide more points than just the few.

tombos21@gmail.com: Stay professional. Accusing someone of being prejudiced and hateful because they put scientific fact over the emotions of others isn't okay. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, no one enjoys seeing those or being on the end of them. Especially when they trying to have a civil debate. Otherwise, good job.

---

4 users rated this judgement as constructive

Judge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Phos Halas
Reasoning:
Alright folks, this was a close one but probably not for the right reasons.

The MAIN PROBLEM with this debate was that both sides stopped arguing the topic half-way through. This was a debate about whether there were only 2 genders. Pro made this super clear at the start. It was NOT a debate about whether it was ok to call a transgender person by their original gender. That too would be interesting, but it is not the topic. If we assume pro is right, then what is the problem with a man switching to being a woman? She would still be gender-binary (ie one of only two genders). If pro is wrong, then there is still no problem. In debating we call this either a strawman or a red herring - a big topic that dominates the debate but is ultimately super irrelevant. So I completely ignored a great deal of what was said because it seemed to relate mostly to this transgender issue, and not to the actual topic. Both sides were super guilty of falling into this trap. I interpreted this motion in the sense of how many genders there should be, given this was clearly pro's intention in beginning this debate, even though it wasn't followed through as much as it should have been.

So pro starts off by saying chromosomes have only 2 expressions except for certain mistakes that don't count because of no reason whatsoever (this would probably have been a wise time to limit the debate to human beings, but whatever). Con argues that words have meanings that can change, and have changed (insert appeal to authority here), because of no reason whatsoever (well, to be fair, he calls the old words "primitive," but what does that really mean?).

These principles were then (correctly, by both debaters) backed up by some social harms. Unfortunately these were also super vague in both cases. From pro we heard of some dishonesty ("but ... I thought you said you were non-binary, not a human male!?" said no one ever) and the need to keep the spirit of Latin alive ("Latina Mortua Est"). Very vague about why these are actually bad - the closest we got were some analogies to drinking etc, but I honestly can't think of any similar laws targeting non-binary individuals who pro doesn't think exist in the first place (meaning any such laws would be self-defeating in pro's model). Pro also stated there is a need for caution when not grounding words in reality. This is potentially a very good nuanced point but pro needed to explain why there is such a need for it to stand.

From con, the argument was even more vague. His main point seemed to be the personal grief and insult people might feel if somebody mistakenly assumed their biological gender matched whatever title / name they wanted somebody else to call them. However, con never actually stated (as far as I can tell) what this prejudice would look like, or why this would be so insulting. Con got so wrapped up in this transgender thing that it seemed like he was trying to convince pro it's ok to call a man a woman, not why it's important to refer to some human beings as neither man nor woman.

So coming back to the principles. I was convinced there should be a way to refer to genetic expressions. Con never really disputed this (sadly). I was not convinced there is any harm in lying about gender either. I agreed the definition had changed, was not convinced there was any reason I should care about this. Putting that together I felt - against my personal belief, I should add - that pro had overall constructed a stronger narrative of what we should do about the word, in spite of recent changes. This was narrow because pro really hadn't done a lot to convince me of this narrative, but it was clearly more consistent than con's.

Feedback:
Ok, so ... ASIDE from the fact both sides totally switched topics and I can't believe nobody else has noticed this...

As debaters you've got 2 jobs. First, your arguments need to be true. Second, they need to be important. To show importance, you've got two tools. First, narratives. This means telling stories about why you think things are particularly good or bad for individuals concerned. Second, comparatives. This means explaining why your points are more salient or important than your opponent's points. Remember it's not your opponent who you're trying to convince - it's judges. Both sides were guilty of this, but I do echo the anti-ad-hominum sentiments of the other judges, and I picked this up in my scoring.

To show truth, judges need to not be confused. This is where having brief, clear structure helps. Headings for key points are a useful tool. Random bold text is a distraction. Judges need to see depth of analysis. You know how in my judgment I have a lot of loose threads? This means there was a chance there to extend your analysis and go deeper than your opponent. More detailed explanation = better argument. Keep asking yourselves why something is true like a 3-year-old.

Pro - your best argument was around why confusion may occur if meanings are reassigned. Your interpretation of those meanings (ie, you refusing to lie about what you believe gender means) doesn't do much to explain why you believe this. Considering this from a medical perspective for example, it's easy to see a concrete harm that could occur if a doctor cannot determine somebody's gender because they are non-binary, and for whatever reason, they are unable to ask or check. However I imagine this kind of thing is a relatively uncommon occurrence anyway. A somewhat better line would be to use an "even if" standpoint that goes something like, con has not shown why gender should be something distinct from biological sex, but even if it is, so-called non-binary still fall within a spectrum of masculinity and femininity - absolute gender constructs which have not changed. Other constructs my opponent may assign genders to are not genders, but may be used by individuals to identify their alignment to these gender identities. If you're able to question con's evidence further this would also have helped your case, but I understand why this is tough on a cellphone. I felt you actually kept on topic more than con did, and it would have basically been an instant win for you if you had simply pointed out con was arguing a completely different topic for most of the debate. Instead I think as debaters we get so hung up on rebutting our opponents that it's easy to miss when the debate shifts focus.

Con - stop leaving your points for later in the debate. Bring out your strongest arguments first. Make sure you understand the actual topic. Have a structure for judges that actually helps us score your points instead of addressing your opponent in person. It actually started in the very first round when you asked them a question. Pro's opinion doesn't matter - the judges' opinions do. Dictionaries don't win debates; in all cases, logic and reasoning over-rides the opinion of dictionary editors. Your main job was to show not why gender was not biological sex, but why gender could be non-binary. Pro admitted as much in his first statement! Then you changed the terms from gender to gender identity, which actually muddles your own case. Stronger would be to argue that gender is innate, not necessarily carried by chromosomes, has not always in historical societies been connected with sex, and most importantly, is not male or female for everyone. It's the same as sexuality - not everyone sits between gay and straight - people can be attracted to just about anything. Same with gender. Your best point was your brown eyes analogy. It could have been extended by explaining why gender matters more than eye color, and probably, why physical traits cannot be innately assumed to exist on any certain spectrum (ie there are some conditions where blue/green/brown are not the only possible colors).

There's a lot to work on ... sorry about that! So here's what you did well!
:) I like that both sides put a lot of clear effort into researching this topic
:) I like that both sides were responsive to each others arguments
:) I like that both sides used clear English and were very readable
:) I like that both sides had a principle and stuck to it for most of the debate
:) I like that both sides had original points and clear evidence of critical thinking

Hope that helps!

---

2 users rated this judgement as constructive

Judge: Johannes
Win awarded to: tombos21@gmail.com
Reasoning:
If I'm being honest I think PRO had more good points that CON, but unfortunately the premise for their main argument(that gender is not societal) is factually wrong. Gender, by definition, refers to what is masculine or what is feminine. We, as a society, over time have come up with characteristics that fit into the definitions of masculinity or femininity; for example, masculinity usually coincides with strength, etc. while femininity often includes beauty, etc.. One way we can observe this truth is through things like clothing. Women wear dresses, men wear shorts; there are no inherent reasons for this other than that is what we, as a society, have decided to match up with what we perceive masculinity and femininity to be. Sex is binary - male or female and is simply determined by your chromosomes. PRO had some solid points and CON had some decent rebuttals but because PRO's main premise was so incorrect I think I have to give it to CON.

---