The Instigator
D7th
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
David_Debates
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Does random or the family come first when deciding/determining gender?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 313 times Debate No: 98151
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

D7th

Pro

Does random or the family come first when deciding/determining gender?
David_Debates

Con

It's genes. The family always remains the same. I'll explain.

Every child is conceved by a man and a woman. Each egg (produced by the female) contains one X chromosome, and sperm (produced by the male) can contain either an X or a Y chromosome. If the sperm that fertilizes the egg contains a X chromosome, then the child will be female. If the sperm that fertilizes the egg contains a Y chromosome, then the child will be male (1).

In other words, a person with XX chromosomes that dictate gender will be female, while a person with XY chromosomes that dictate gender will be male.

There is no male without a Y chromosome, and no female without a X chromosome, so there is no way to eliminate the possibility of having a male child or vice versa, unless you were to remove all sperm with the X or Y chromosomes in question, dependent on which chromosome you wanted to isolate (X for girl, Y for boy).

So I come to the conclusion that it is random: a 50/50 shot at either gender in all natural situations (1). Understand, this does not entail vitro fertilization.

Pro?

Sources:
(1) https://www.genderselectionauthority.com...
Debate Round No. 1
D7th

Pro

In your argument, Con, have you not concentrated our readers focus to the idea that it's "random", rather than supply evidence that prove that gender is determined randomly?

It's a harsh translation, but it's easy to see the double-edged sword of the original question, "Does random or the family come first when deciding/determining gender?", still present in your argument.

What I'm trying to explain is, Con, you haven't moved far from the original argument. You thought that you had suppressed the 'family' option of the original question, but in all fairness, the 'family' option, is balanced with the 'random' option.

What would you say in your defense?

I recommend you don't highlight 'is', or repeat your supplied evidence that puts forth no argument, but the grounds for the original question to be asked.
David_Debates

Con

I may have misunderstood the resolution and Pro's position.

I believed that the resolution was interpreted to mean: "Does random chance or the family have priority to detirmine gender?"

I thought that Pro would be arguing that the family has priority in gender, and that I, Con, would argue that random chance detirmines gender. I gathered this from the comment thread on this debate, wherein Lannan13 asked "Which side are you arguing for?" Pro's response was: "the family."

From Pro's argument in round 2, however, this seems to change. I have now been given the burden to disprove what I had been arguing for in round 1: that I must disprove both random chance and family precidence in gender detimination. I find this to be unfair of Pro, to change the interpretation of the resolution. Thus, I will wait for a reply from Pro before I may contradict myself.

Pro also argues that I must somehow prove my case. This is incorrect. As Con, my burden is to refute, not to prove. Pro has the burden of proof (BoP) in this debate, and thus must prove that the resolution is true. Pro is not in position to ask questions when he has not provided an argument with sufficient facts or data.

Brief recap of my argument:

As I have shown, genes detirmine gender, and thus, give the chance of having a male 50/50, or vice versa.

For this reason, I have negated Pro's position that the family has precidence in determining gender, instead, it is something outside of their control in natural situations.
Debate Round No. 2
D7th

Pro

It's my last chance to argue for family, which is unfortunate, as I would like to query Con's argument, rather than contradict it...

>something outside of their control in natural situations.

Do you consider the natural circumstances of childbirth to be, metaphorically, like a bubble (i.e. contained in theoretical space)?

If yes, I disagree.

I argue that natural circumstances are, in this context, universal, and therefore can't be reduced to a single moment (How big is the bubble?)

I argue family determines gender.

When a male reproduces with a female, a baby (or babies) is born of either male or female gender. Though this process is random, the result is determined by the male and female duet.
David_Debates

Con

Pro asks a question.

Q) Do you consider the natural circumastances of childbirth to be, metaphorically, like a bubble (i.e. contained in theoretical space)?

A) No. Natural circumsatnces of childbirth are physical, and not theoretical. If you were to contain a group of sperm and an egg in a vial, persay, you could in effect view the conception of a human.

Pro then states that family determines gender. However, Pro then concedes that the process is random, proving my case.

If Pro states that the process of gender detirmination is random, and is not able to be controled by the family, you must find for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by D7th 1 year ago
D7th
the family.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Which side are you arguing for?
No votes have been placed for this debate.