The Instigator
doomswatter
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Caitlyn Jenner is a He or an It

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,786 times Debate No: 76460
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (105)
Votes (8)

 

doomswatter

Pro

Con's first round is for acceptance only. No new arguments in the final round.

Resolution

Resolved: Caitlyn Jenner is more accurately and objectively described by the pronouns "he" or "it" than by the pronoun "she".

Definitions

Caitlyn Jenner: Celebrity. Olympic athlete. On the cover of the June 2015 issue of "Vanity Fair". Born William Bruce Jenner on October 28,1949, in Mount Kisco, New York, to Esther R. and William Hugh Jenner.

Accurate: (of information, measurements, statistics, etc.) correct in all details; exact.

Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

*This is, by nature, a semantic debate, but only in regard to the terms "he", "it", "she", and root terms used to define these terms, such as "male" and "female". Further semantics, such as discussions of the term "is", are not allowed.*
Wylted

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
doomswatter

Pro

doomswatter forfeited this round.
Wylted

Con

Gender vs Sex

When using words like he, she, him, her, man and woman, we could be referring to two different things. We could be referring to their sex or their gender. Let's examine both words

Gender: "The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Sex: "Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions:" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

When discussing Caitlyn Jenner, we must determine, whether it is more appropriate and accurate to address her as a female, or as a male. If I show that in most circumstances, calling Mrs. Jenner a her is appropriate, than we can conclusively say that referring to her as a female, is more accurate. We literally use gender pronouns all the time without a second thought. We rarely address somebody by what sex they are, because honestly we don't even know. We usually refer to them as whatever face they put on to the world. Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) has given herself a female name, female appearance, and finally called herself a "woman" after his appearance on "Vanity Fair".

Three things are clear. Gender and sex are different things. We typically don't inspect people's crotch before addressing them, so referring to them by gender is more appropriate and common. Caitlyn, claims to be a woman. The debate should be over right here, but I'll continue.

Here is a quote from a transgender writer on how to choose what pronoun to call an individual.

"Whenever possible, ask transgender people which pronoun they would like you to use.
A person who identifies as a certain gender, whether or not that person has taken hormones or had some form of surgery, should be referred to using the pronouns appropriate for that gender.

If it is not possible to ask a transgender person which pronoun is preferred, use the pronoun that is consistent with the person's appearance and gender expression.
For example, if a person wears a dress and uses the name Susan, feminine pronouns are usually appropriate.

It is never appropriate to put quotation marks around either a transgender person's chosen name or the pronoun that reflects that person's gender identity."


http://boingboing.net...

Personally, I think asking them their preferred pronoun is going to far. We don't do that with random non transgendered people we meet, and we shouldn't do it with them, but the writer does give some common sense advice, you should refer to somebody, by whatever gender, they put themselves out as, unless they make it clear they would prefer a different pronoun.

Let me sum this up, again. Just to make myself clear. In everyday life, we refer to people as the gender they look like or try to look like (again, doing a crotch check is rude), seeing as how, gender is the most common identifier of a person and not sex, it would be more accurate to call the person, by their gender.

Gender Identity

I want to dig a bit more into gender identity, since it may not be clear to some voters, that people actually do identify with a gender, that doesn't necessarily align with their sex. Some people, may think "well this is just a boy putting on a dress, not a girl", but that isn't how gender identity works. Most of the time, a person's gender identity is formed at 3 years old. (Ann M. Gallagher, James C. Kaufman (2005). Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach)

Gender identity isn't something they have control over. If you haven't gone through it just imagine it for yourself. Imagine being another sex. Maybe you'll enjoy the new play things at first, but what about after that? When you settle into your sex. I'm both male in gender and sex, if I became female, I'd struggle real hard to care for my appearance as much as they do, I'd probably enjoy belching and farting a lot, I'd drink beer and hard liquor instead of wine coolers. Sure these things are okay for me to do as a guy, society isn't going to look down on me for it, but females would look like straight trash for that stuff. If a female was in a male's body, they may enjoy dressing up, painting their nails, watching soap operas, or whatever the hell chicks do. The bad thing is, they'd have to repress their gender identity, in order to fit in. They wouldn't feel completely themselves. If you can't imagine yourself in the opposite sex's body, because you can't stop thinking about the new play things, than just think about yourself if you switched bodies, with your mom or grandma.

Nobody faces as much persecution as transgendered people. Nobody chooses to identify with another sex, nobody would take all that pain and suffering for "the fun of it", these people actually identify with a gender that doesn't match their sex. They make these changes, so their outside can match their insides. We should respect that, and use the pronoun that most accurately describes their gender.

Before you start thinking that gender identity is just a social construct and shouldn't be taken seriously, take a look at what several doctors researching gender identity have stated on the subject;

"Note that just as gender and sex are not interchangeable terms, neither are gender development and sexual development interchangeable. Physiologic sexual development progresses through distinct stages from the neonatal period through infancy, childhood, puberty and adolescence, and adulthood. Such physiologic change is distinguishable from gender-related behaviors during each of these stages. The sexual identity that emerges beyond childhood is very clearly a separate entity from gender identity. Aspects of physical sexual growth, eroticism, and eventual sexuality, although closely related to gender, should not necessarily be used to draw conclusions about a patient's gender definitions" http://emedicine.medscape.com...

Conclusion

Gender identity and the sex of an individual, for the most part overlaps. Sometimes the overlap just doesn't happen. We know that sex and gender identity are two separate things. We know that typically not only do people bypass "crotch tests" to refer to an individuals gender, not sex. We know that people prefer to be called by their gender. (if you don't believe me, imagine people continually referring to you as the inappropriate gender).

The concept of gender, can't necessarily be as easily quantified as sex, but we know that the two are distinct entities. I ask the judges to use common sense and vote con in this debate.

Note To Pro

Pro, you've made the mistake of forfeiting the first round, but you don't have to forfeit the debate. If you forfeit the debate, like you told me you wanted to do, I'll understand, but I definitely wanted to write my argument before you decided to do so. Good Luck
Debate Round No. 2
doomswatter

Pro

Thanks to Wylted for accepting, and for leading off with a thought-provoking round. I hope that the virtue of my arguments is not overshadowed by my posting problems in round 2. Due to character constraints, I will post arguments this round and rebuttals in round 4.

Arguments

1. Accuracy and Objectivity

To affirm the resolution, I must show that "he" or "it" is *more* accurate and objective than "she" in describing Caitlyn Jenner. This does not mean that "she" cannot be accurate or objective, only that "he" or "it" must be more so.

1a. Accuracy

To determine which descriptor is more accurate, each must be examined for exclusivity. The more exclusive the descriptor, the more accurate it is. For example, when describing Barack Obama, I could use the term "leader" or "president". "President" is the more exclusive of the two, still describing a "leader" while excluding other types of leaders like kings and mayors. Therefore, "president" would be the *more* accurate descriptor.

1b. Objectivity

The objectivity of a descriptor can be determined by examining the level of personal feeling and opinion the descriptor encompasses. The more feeling and opinion, the less objectivity. When describing Obama, I could use the term "good" or "consistent". "Consistent" is the more objective of the two, as it can be supported by facts. Whether or not the President's consistent actions are "good" is a matter of personal feeling and opinion.

2. She

2a. Biological Definitions

She: the female person or animal being discussed or last mentioned.[1]

Female: 1. a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei... 2. an organism of the sex or sexual phase that normally produces egg cells.[2]

According to the above definitions, "she" refers to a female, and a female is a person who bears two X chromosomes and normally produces egg cells.

These definitions create a potentially accurate descriptor. They exclude a person that does not meet the biological requirements. They are also objective. They can be verified through scientific, medical procedure, instead of being based in feelings or opinions.

Defined biologically, does "she" accurately and objectively describe Caitlyn Jenner? Jenner was born biologically male[3], having an X and Y chromosome pair[4], and has not been genetically altered, as such alterations are still being experimentally tested on embryos.[5] As for producing egg cells, Jenner has had sex reassignment surgery[6], but such a surgery does not currently involve the transplantation of working ovaries, as such transplantation has so far been experimental.[7][8] Lacking the second X chromosome and egg producing organs, Jenner cannot be accurately nor objectively described as a biological "she".

2b. Other Definitions

Female: 5. of, relating to, or characteristic of a female person.[2]

The above definition is circular, requiring an outside definition of “female”.

She: 3. anything considered, as by personification, to be feminine.[1]

This definition begs a few more.

Personification: 3. the person or thing embodying a quality or the like; an embodiment or incarnation.[9]

Feminine: 1. pertaining to a woman or girl. 2. having qualities traditionally ascribed to women, as sensitivity or gentleness. 3. effeminate; womanish.[10]

Using these definitions, Caitlyn Jenner can indeed be described as a "she" if Jenner embodies feminine qualities. However, is this definition of "she" the more accurate and objective?

“Pertaining to a woman or girl" is circular, requiring further defining of "woman" and "girl", which leads back to the definition of "female".

“Having qualities traditionally ascribed to women, as sensitivity or gentleness" is neither accurate nor objective. A male "he", could easily have qualities of sensitivity or gentleness, giving this definition poor accuracy. As for objectivity, "tradition" is arbitrary, varying from one person, family, and culture to the next, and is subject to change. Likewise, judging whether a person has qualities such as sensitivity or gentleness is completely subjective. There is no medical test for gentleness. One person may think Caitlyn Jenner has "traditionally ascribed" feminine qualities, while another may not.

"Effeminate; womanish" lacks objectivity. There is no universal standard for such qualities, nor can they be medically tested or diagnosed. Whether a person is effeminate or womanish is subjective opinion.

All three above definitions of "feminine", and thereby the "personification" definition of "she", fail to be more accurate and objective than the biological definition.

3. He

3a. Biological Definitions

He: 1. the male person or animal being discussed or last mentioned.[11]

Male: 1. a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei. 2. an organism of the sex or sexual phase that normally produces a sperm cell or male gamete.[4]

As with the biological definition of "female", this definition of "male" is both accurate and objective. The presence of the Y chromosome and the production of sperm cells are both scientifically, medically verifiable. As has already been covered, Caitlyn Jenner was born male, with Y chromosomes and, presumably, considering Jenner has children[3], male reproductive organs. Therefore, this definition of "male" and "he" accurately and objectively describes Jenner.

Though it may be true that Jenner's hormone therapy has resulted in infertility, stopping the production of sperm cells, this does not eliminate the presence of the Y chromosome. "He" stands as a more accurate and objective description of Caitlyn Jenner than "she".

3b. Gender-Neutral Definition

He: anyone (without reference to sex); that person.[11]

In English, "he" has been used as a gender-neutral pronoun when the gender of the subject is unknown.[12] Therefore, this "he" could also be used very accurately and objectively to describe Caitlyn Jenner, as long as Jenner's gender is unknown or unspecified.

4. It

It: 2. used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded.[13]

This definition of "it" makes an accurate and objective description of Caitlyn Jenner when Jenner's gender is unknown or disregarded.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the biological use of "she" is the only “she” that passes the accuracy and objectivity test, and it is certainly less accurate and objective in describing Caitlyn Jenner than both "it" and the biological and gender-neutral uses of "he". The resolution is affirmed.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2]http://dictionary.reference.com...

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org...

[4]http://dictionary.reference.com...

[5]http://www.livescience.com...

[6]http://radaronline.com...

[7]https://en.wikipedia.org...

[8]https://en.wikipedia.org...

[9]http://dictionary.reference.com...

[10]http://dictionary.reference.com...

[11]http://dictionary.reference.com...

[12]https://en.wikipedia.org...

[13]http://dictionary.reference.com...

Wylted

Con

To have a more fair debate and equal rounds to my opponent, I'll refrain from posting an argument this round.
Debate Round No. 3
doomswatter

Pro

My thanks to Con for his fairness, and for the spirited competition.

Rebuttals

- Con alters the resolution when he states, "...we must determine, whether it is more appropriate and accurate..." The resolution is about objectivity and accuracy. Appropriateness is irrelevant to this debate.

- Con states, "We rarely address somebody by what sex they are, because...we don't even know. We usually refer to them as whatever face they put on...", and, "We typically don't inspect people's crotch before addressing them, so referring to them by gender is more appropriate and common."

Whether it is appropriate or common to assume the gender of a person by their appearance is a subject for another debate. As for the present debate, Con's statements reveal the subjectivity in such assumptions, "because honestly we don't even know". Con affirms that the use of gender-specific pronouns, when the sex is unknown, is subjective to the opinions of the observer and the feelings of the observed.

Con's point is doubly irrelevant, because we do know Caitlyn Jenner's sex. The whole idea of Jenner being a "transgender woman" carries with it the revelation that Jenner "used to be" a man.

- Con states, "Caitlyn, claims to be a woman."

This does not prove objectivity or accuracy. I can claim to be a dolphin, but that does not make calling me a dolphin more objective or accurate than calling me a human.

Con then cites an author who recommends subjective methods of choosing a pronoun, including asking which a person would "like" and judging the person's appearance.

- Con states, "...we refer to people as the gender they look like or try to look like (again, doing a crotch check is rude), seeing as how, gender is the most common identifier of a person and not sex, it would be more accurate to call the person, by their gender."

If the sex of the person is known, as is the case with Caitlyn Jenner, then it would be accurate and objective to call them by their sex. If the sex of the person is not known, then it would be more accurate and objective to use the neutral pronoun "it", or the gender-neutral version of "he". "Most common" does not equal "more accurate".

- Con finishes R2 with some information on transgender people that is not relevant to the debate. A person identifying with the stereotypes of a certain gender by the age of three does not alter the person's biological structure, nor does the person's age remove the inherent subjectivity in "gender identity". The struggles a person faces because they identify with a different set of subjective stereotypes than the ones expected of them do not alter their biological and genetic makeup, and do not remove the inherent subjectivity of gender stereotypes. The hardships transgender people face are irrelevant to the debate. Not only does using a certain pronoun out of "respect" not affect its accuracy, it implies that it is being used subjectively.

Conclusion

This debate is not about what people "prefer to be called". This debate is not about what is appropriate or respectful. This debate is about accuracy and objectivity. As I have demonstrated, the most accurate and objective version of “she” is the biological one, and it does not describe Caitlyn Jenner with more accuracy or objectivity than “it” or the biological and gender-neutral versions of “he”. The resolution stands.

Thank you, voters, for your time and consideration.

Wylted

Con

I win this debate. My opponent has argued past my points, but they still hold up. My reasons for arguing the use of gender as opposed to sex when referring to gender has been dropped. This argument being dropped means I win, especially after I've already explained why gender should be used as a reference in favor of sex. 11 out of my opponent's 13 sources are from wikipedia and the dictionary, the judges shouldn't be fooled by the source spamming and are certainly justified in awarding me source points if they so wish, by indicating that mine are superior sources based on the fact that I refer to scientific articles, instead of ones that could be edited by any random person who just happens upon the page. Though I'd prefer that my exact words, aren't used to award me source points.

Dropped Arguments

My opponent has dropped my arguments that gender and sex are different unrelated things. My opponent has dropped my argument, that typically referring to Caityln Jenner, we'll be referring to her gender as opposed to her sex. My opponent has dropped my arguments that gender association is a real, testable thing as my scientific sources have shown. All these arguments get credited to me, and even without my rebuttals, that's enough to win me this debate.

Accurate vs Specific

My opponent brings up what is essentially a red herring argument. The accuracy and specificity of a descriptor are two different things. When talking of Obama, sometimes leader will be the more accurate, sometimes president will be the more accurate descriptor. Accurate is a closer synonym to correct than the word specific as my opponent would have you think. For example, when discussing Obama's role in the free world, we'd call him leader of the free world, but not president of the free world. So context matters when choosing a descriptor. Context matters a lot more than specificity. The more accurate identifier of a person will depend on context.

I've made the argument, that we're debating the gender of Mrs. Jenner. That when referring to a person as a he or she, that we're typically referring to said individual, by their gender. A doctor may want to know somebody's sex, but most people will just want to know a person's gender for identification purposes. As much as my opponent wants to brush this off, politeness is a factor in this as well. Most people prefer to be referred to by their gender, over their sex. This tells us that we should refer to people by their gender. The context in which, we'll mostly be referring to Caitlyn Jenner, is in regards to her gender.

He

My opponent claims that he can be gender neutral, but that's absurd. The definition of he as being gender neutral is when it's used in an abstract way, such as: He who laughs last, laughs hardest" here is the definition my opponent uses and the example it gives, the example confirms my interpretation.

He-anyone (without reference to sex); that person:

"He who hesitates is lost."
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Referring to a specific person, with this definition is beyond absurd.

Chromosomes

Another problem with my opponent's argument is that he tries to define sex by what Chromosomes a person has. My opponent has no ideal what chromosomes Mrs. Jenner has. It's common knowledge to those who study such matters, that some men have no Y chromosomes and that some women do in fact actually have a Y chromosome.

"
In fact, there"s a whole lot more to maleness and femaleness than X or Y chromosomes. About 1 in 20,000 men has no Y chromosome, instead having 2 Xs. This means that in the United States there are about 7,500 men without a Y chromosome. The equivalent situation - females who have XY instead of XX chromosomes - can occur for a variety of reasons and overall is similar in frequency."
http://www.isna.org...

You can just go back and disregard anything my opponent has said about chromosomes. His information is a myth and not relevant to the debate.

CONCLUSION

This is a really easy vote. My opponent has to prove two things, that Jenner is more accurately and objectively referred to as a he or it. He has failed to do that. His definitions of male and female don't hold of to scientific scrutiny. He dropped several of my arguments (see beginning of this round), he falsely conflates the terms specific and accurate. My opponent fails to offer a rebuttal to the fact that in most situations, Jenner will be referred to by their gender as opposed to their sex. Do the right thing. Vote Wylted.
Debate Round No. 4
105 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
I should note that the debate did not split into genetics versus social construct, at least with Pro versus Con. Any mention of that was preconception.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
(RFD 1/4)

I was ask to vote on this debate by both debaters. I feel adored =)

The core contention of the debate is whether "He" and "It" more accurately commands biologically determined sex (Pro), or socially constructed gender identity (Con).

== Definitions ==

I think the "Objective" definition slants in Pro"s favour. Whilst social constructions pertains far more to the subjective, biologically determined sex is far more objective. In fact, the socially constructed gender is indeed influenced by "personal feelings" and I am struggling to think of ways in which the social gender construction can be anything but based on how you feel (which goes against the "objective" definition of this debate. But it depends on the frame of the debate (i.e. it could, I guess, be argued that Jenner objectively feels a certain way). I can"t help but think Con is set-up to fail. Anyway, let us see exactly what the arguments are.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
(RFD 2/4)

== Pro Affirmative ==

In terms of biological sex, Pro goes a long way to show that Jenner cannot be considered a she, therefore she defaults to either a he or an it. Pro also examines (1) multiple definitions and (2) the requirements of being biologically a he or she, which were smart moves because this debate is ultimately about the semantics of he. Whilst this line of argument neglects the gender as a social construction consideration, it neglects it on the basis that biological sex is objective; biological sex exists independently of "personal feelings". This is solid, theoretical framework. However, it should be noted that the "it" argument from Pro is actually trying to affirm via gender as a social construct (and Con ends up ignoring it!!).

The "gender-neutral he" argument is clever and gives Pro a second way to win (and I honestly was not expecting this). Con wisely attacks it, saying that because we know Jenner, we can no longer use the gender-neutral "he". I buy Con"s counter-argument because he created a relevant disconnect between the different "he" usages. However, Con could have easily lost on this.

However, Con smashes a crack in the "he" definition, citing how 1 in 20000 men have Xx chromosomes. This really hurts the biological dimorphism which is integral to Pro"s argument and shows that the theoretical framework does not quite fit reality.

Further problems come when Con mentions that the chromosome argument struggles to get off the ground because we do not know, apriori, whether Jenner is biologically a male or female. This is serious problem as really highlights Pro"s inability to affirm the resolution.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
(RFD 3/4)

== Con: Negation ==

The crotch argument has some traction: we do not ascribe pronouns based on a genital examination. Rather, we do so on appearance or preferred gender preference. I think Pro"s counter-response points out contradiction nicely, in that Pro quotes Con saying "because honestly we don"t even know [the person"s gender]". The rebuttal mechanic Pro is working with is that Con says that we determine gender based on appearance, but then Con says this. Con does have an escape in that he argues that outsiders can judge by asking for preferred gender pronouns, but this line of argument is at least mitigated.

Con further argues that most of the time, a person"s gender is formed at the age of 12; "gender identity isn"t something [transgendered people] have control over". They make changes so their "outside can match their insides". To further address Con"s line of argument on transgendered people, Pro rightly points out that within the term "transgendered", implicit is the concession that Jenner used to be a man, yet Con"s arguments are that gender is, to some extent, fixed. This appears to be equivocation from Con, wherein Con argues that gender is fixed (match their insides) yet can change (transgendered).

As for Con showing that how these people ascribe themselves, I cannot see any argument from him outside people choosing what they preferred to be called, which as Pro points out, is not at all "objective". In other words, by referring to someone"s "gender", it appears that it is always going to be what a person personally feels, rather than objectivity. Whilst Con is right in saying that gender can be accurate, Pro shows that it can *never* be objective and will *always* be about personal feelings.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
(RFD 4/4)

== Conclusion ==

Pro"s case is not perfect. The chromosome counter-point from Con was a heavy hit because it shows the theoretical framework as being non-congruent with reality. The lack of genetic information provided by Pro, as Con pointed out, means that we do not know what Jenner is. However, the "it" affirmation possibility remains open for Pro, as Con seemed to ignore it. Since Jenner"s gender is not known, this is the argument that we can default to (and it"s "objective" because we do not know Jenner"s gender or biological sex).

Alternatively, Con"s case was shown to be *never* able to be affirmed, due to the "objective" definition contradicting the core of his argument. With Con"s only part of argument that did not get rebutted directly, the indirect destruction of the core of Con"s argument. Again, I cannot see how gender is decided on by anything but a "personal choice", which contradicts the "objective" definition.

So, the "it" line of argument from Pro, which was not the focus of the debate, wins by default because we do not know Jenner"s gender and that is accurate and objective. Thus, Pro wins arguments.

== Sources ==

Both of the debater"s sources are fine. Whilst Pro using Wikipedia a lot is not the best, I do not think it is enough to award Con sources.

== S&G ==

Con"s habit of placing commas in the wrong places is annoying, but it is not enough to detract from the majority of sentences that flow.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
It's not brought up in the debate, so however you interpret it.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
I suppose everyone is asleep. I will assume it is and my vote can be deleted if it's not.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
Is the BoP shared?
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I can see where you are coming from with regard to the conduct point. And it is true that enough people simply pop in and award the conduct point, it'll skew the results in a way that may not reflect who received more votes based on argumentation. A couple of things though:

1. Forfeiting is the fault of the debater. You just have to accept that missing the deadline will skew results against you and be on time.
2. Use the "select winner" system which takes away most of the problems with the seven-point system that you chose when you instigated the debate.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
************************************************************************
>Reported vote: 9spaceking// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: ff

[*Reason for non-removal*] A one-round forfeit is a sufficient reason to award conduct but NOT arguments. A full forfeit is a sufficient reason for awarding arguments as well. In this case, the voter only awarded the conduct point so it passes moderation review.
*********************************************************************************
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
doomswatterWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. The rebuttals tore almost everything to shreds. Conduct for the round forfeit.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
RoyLatham
doomswatterWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Semantic debates most often turn on which of multiple meanings of a word best fit the context of it's use. None of the multiple meanings are wrong, it's a question of what best fits the context. Pro is arguing that the technical definition of (X,Y) chromosomes ought to take precedence over the social meaning of how someone appears. The appropriate context for this debate seems to be the social one. If physicians were discussing some matter of internal organs, the technical context would likely be the appropriate one. Dictionaries are written to reflect how words are in fact used in context; they do not dictate usage. Pro loses conduct for the forfeit. Con did not have to deliberately pass a round, but that's his choice, and he did not forfeit.
Vote Placed by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
doomswatterWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD - http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=WrKDcqTS
Vote Placed by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
doomswatterWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: rfd in comments. Conduct for ff
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
doomswatterWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
doomswatterWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: 2nd round forfeit by Pro, so conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
doomswatterWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments. Conduct to Con for the forfeit.
Vote Placed by Mikal 1 year ago
Mikal
doomswatterWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff