There are only two Genders
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
somerandomvideocreator
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 12/10/2017 | Category: | Health | ||
| Updated: | 7 months ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 1,152 times | Debate No: | 105709 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)
 Pro There are only two genders(in humans), attempt to disprove something that's already been proven, attempting to prove that there are more two genders or sexes is like trying to prove that the earth is a dinosaur. Con https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... Conclusion: There are more than two sexes because there are more than 2 combinations of sex chromosomes, even in humans. |
 |
||||||
|
Pro LOL! Do you know what Wikipedia is? Wikipedia is a website in which allows others to edit articles, using wikipedia as a "valid source" which invalidates your point. Anyways, look up the definition of sex. I'm going to use a valid source sex
/sɛks/
noun
1.
the sum of the characteristics that distinguish organisms on the basisof their reproductive function
2.
either of the two categories, male or female, into which organismsare placed on this basis
3.
short for sexual intercourse
sex
seks/
noun
verb
source: looking up "sex definiton" on Google. Conclusion: Don't use Wikipedia as a "valid source" when infact it's not. I'm not going to bother even clicking on those links because they ALL come from the same invalid source. Con https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.genome.gov... http://kidshealth.org... They call people with this syndrome male, but the sex chromosomes are not XY. |
 |
||||||
|
Pro Con "A group of many conditions that cause people to be born in the middle of the spectrum from male to female..." https://medlineplus.gov... "Intersex is a group of conditions where there is a discrepancy between the external genitals and the internal genitals (the testes and ovaries)." http://www.isna.org... "'Intersex' is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn"t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male." All of these are valid sources that imply, if not state, that there is a spectrum between male and female, more than 2 genders. |
 |
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DawnBringerRiven 7 months ago
| Smiggles | somerandomvideocreator | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - |  | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
>Reported vote: Edril// Mod action Removed<
6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I'm with Pro on the topic; there are only 2 genders: male and female. Genetic mutations that cause ambiguity between the 2 do not add genders, they just make it ambiguous due to deformity. Con's conduct was more mature. Con simply restated his stance by quoting the dictionary instead of providing an argument that supports the definition. All sources used by both sides were reliable, in my view, and Con provided many more than Pro.
[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than simply state that one side was "more mature." The debater in question must have been outright insulting, forfeited a round, or broken the debate rules. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter only states their personal agreement with Pro, states that Con failed to argue, and then awards arguments to Con. That doesn"t make sense. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter cannot simply award points based on quantity of sources " the voter must compare their quality as well, and assess specific sources in the process.
************************************************************************
>Reported vote: SeekinTruth// Mod action: Removed<
3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: An absolutely cancerous debate.
[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
>Reported vote: BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2// Mod action: Removed<
5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro by default!
[*Reason removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************