The Instigator
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Center_for_Rationality
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Hand orientation is justification for genetic engineering of 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 2 votes the winner is...
Center_for_Rationality
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 992 times Debate No: 28021
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

RationalMadman

Pro

Assuming the theory that 3/4 of the world is right-handed and 1/4 is left-handed, this is warrant to support parents choosing their child's gender or a government regulating this since one day as it easily could end up being that a generation ends up with a gender share similar to that of the hands and if 3/4 of the world is male that's a huge reproductive strain on the 1/4 women.
Center_for_Rationality

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate regarding the nature of genetics and genetic modification on the basis of hand orientation. All I need is show that my opponent is incorrect in his reasoning for hand orientation. I do not believe my opponent has a background in biology otherwise he would realise there is no genetic way to produce such ridiculous effects. There are five problems with this:
Arguments
1. Assuming Genetics works the way my opponent says it does:
So lets assume my opponent is right in that genetics are simply probability. 1/2 of people are male and likewise with females. If my opponent is correct this would not change. People would reproduce normally and since there is no particular genetic advantage in being a female the results would not be abnormal. If Genetics works by simple probability than the only possible way that it could come close is if there was some genetic advantage at being female.
2. Mutations and sexual reproduction
Mutations are the main cause of genetic variability along with sexual reproduction so when we follow that to its logical conclusion we can see STILL assuming my opponents logical process that it is rather doubtful any change would be made to regard gender because genetic variability isn't random it is based off mutations and reproduction.
3.Mutations on the Sexual Chromosomes
My opponent may ask what if a mutation on the sexual chromosome happened? Organisms have many redundant genes, and many genes are turned off. Odds are against a mutation actually affecting the organism. Also, many genetic effects on the sexual chromosome can be seen as negative as they damage the organisms ability to procreate.
4.Any population inequality would be easily fixed.
If 75% of people are males and 25% are females, it follows from the monogamous nature of humans(in general, not to say there isn't exceptions) that the population should change, even from natural selection perspective there would be genetic advantage in being a female(being one of the only is a advantage)
5.Male and Female ratio in general isn't really based on genetics.
Obviously there is a little variability here but in general there is no genetic dependence on sex of the baby. The only possible would be male to female sperm inside the testes however other than that the dependence of sex is 50 50, XX or XY chromosome.
My opponent has failed to meet his BOP :) Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
RationalMadman

Pro

I think my opponent totally misunderstood my debate and am personally offended considering my high level of studying DNA structure and microbiology that he would insult my knowledge on the subject.

There is a 50/50 chance of your child being right or left handed based on genes, it's one chromosome, just like the X or Y. The difference here is this. A vast majority of humans are right handed despite this chance. We have by pure luck happened to end up with a world where there's relatively equal distribution of men and women. Nonetheless, one day it could be disastrous and just like the fact that despite ONE GENE of 50% chance controlling hand orientation, FAR MORE people are right handed then despite it only being the X or Y chromosome on the sperm there could be a generation with a HUGE gender imbalance. Sure if there were few men and many women it would be huge benefit for the men but the reverse would probably result in gang rape and violence to the hilt. People have an urge to reproduce at ANY cost (how the heck do you think we evolved to be so smart? Only the smart ones survived, as opposed to the strong ones in most other species). We are a brutal species, don't let civilisation fool you. As a socialist I believe it is a government's role to not gamble the safety and distribution of their people away on the roll of a dice. Believe me 90% men and 10% women in a generation would tear your country apart (and left and right handedness proves that despite 50% factor chance, it doesn't mean that anywhere close to 50% distribution will be the outcome) We MUST ensure this never happens!.
Center_for_Rationality

Con

Offended?
I apologize if my opponent is hurt by the statement I made regarding his lack of knowledge in biology however I am terribly sad to say in this second round unless it is by mistake he has shown further lack of knowledge in biology.

Dropped Arguments
Usually if a opponent doesn't address a argument than it is considered dropped, my opponent has literally dropped all 5 arguments and charged me with misunderstanding him. He seems to be more concerned with debate political policy but I am committed to defeating his notion in a biological sense so he never has to make that decision because it is largely irrelevant and terribly unlikely.

Chromosomes and Genes
So regarding this, genes and chromosomes are not the same thing. My opponent seems to use these terms interchangeably. The reason why humans have hand orientation has to with genes not chromosomes which are made up of genes(remember fallacy of composition here). Right handed is probably homozygous dominant and heterozygous trait, as that would explain the statistics well. However being male or female is not a genetically based in that sense it involves Mitosis and the genetic information shared between sperm and egg with the gender of the sperm determining sex.


Conclusion
My opponent has dropped all of my arguments and has shown he doesn't understand genetic exchange in sexual reproduction. I urge a Con vote today :)


Debate Round No. 2
RationalMadman

Pro

RationalMadman forfeited this round.
Center_for_Rationality

Con

Extendamundo
Debate Round No. 3
RationalMadman

Pro

basically it could end up more males or more females one time like more right handers and that's huge problem very bad for nation... Just saying.
Center_for_Rationality

Con

This is bare assertion fallacy and you are literally just ignoring arguments I call for loss of all seven points for essential forfeit.
Debate Round No. 4
RationalMadman

Pro

There is no assertion, if a 50/50 chance gene can end up with a 75:25 distribution (this is an understatement) then what's stopping it all of a sudden happening in the 'gender lottery' for a nation? This is definitely too much gambling which the government must accept responsibility of if it goes horribly wrong.
Center_for_Rationality

Con

1. Assuming Genetics works the way my opponent says it does:
No answer=Psy gangem style defeat
2. Mutations and sexual reproduction
Answer? Daily Double
3.Mutations on the Sexual Chromosomes
Argument really not answered
4.Any population inequality would be easily fixed.
Argument not answered :)
5.Male and Female ratio in general isn't really based on genetics.
Argument not answered :)
My opponent has failed to meet his BOP :) Therefore he is the weakest link goodbye :)
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Center_for_Rationality 4 years ago
Center_for_Rationality
Not at all, cytoplasm has nothing to do with genetics.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
cell biology = genetics
Posted by Center_for_Rationality 4 years ago
Center_for_Rationality
your comment on irrelvancy on 3 didn't make sense of a objection. You claimed it was pointless but it has meaning, unless your equvicating genes to mean chromosomes.

4 is natural population model, males cannot reproduce without females. Eventually males and females would balance because of global reproduction trends.

5 means that gender has to do with meiosis which is more cell biology than genetics dispite its seemingly genetic basis
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
3 is irrelevant i already said that.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
please points 4 and 5 explain
Posted by Center_for_Rationality 4 years ago
Center_for_Rationality
Actually round one :)
Posted by Center_for_Rationality 4 years ago
Center_for_Rationality
I didn't I introduced all the arguments in round 2 it was a review :)
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
you can't raise new points in last round idiot.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
RationalMadmanCenter_for_RationalityTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
RationalMadmanCenter_for_RationalityTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes an interesting argument, but he failed to respond to Con's case against, and he forfeited one round, so arguments to Con.