The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Evolution explains the diversification of all life on Earth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,179 times Debate No: 118873
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)




Il let con make their opening statements.


So the debate is "evolution explains the diversification of all life on earth"
However there is one that evolution doesn't explain

Evolution doesn't explain the diversification of the gender SPECTRUM

A large chunk of society agree with the "gender spectrum". It has been accepted to a point where there are rights for these trans-gendered people in countries such as Canada. So unfortunately, The gender spectrum is legit when it comes to acceptance, They are living on earth.

So please explain to me how "evolution explains the diversification" of the gender spectrum

Canada's rights for trans, Gender variant and two spirit resources
https://guides. Vpl. Ca/c. Php? G=698666&p=4959826

Note: I believe there are only 2 genders, However society doesn't and now the "gender spectrum" is legit :/ I just want to be a smartass and challenge this debate :)
Debate Round No. 1


The gender spectrum is a social construct in the same way women being oppressed is a social construct, Il be it a useless and wrong one though.

It does not matter what "gender" someone says they are, They will either have a penis or vagina, Or at the very least the DNA of a male or female, In turn this really doesn't have anything to do with what i was hoping to discuss because evolution more then explains, Predicts and shows that there will be multiple beings with different ways of thinking weather it be for the better, Or in this case for worse.

Of course if you wanted to discuss how and why sexuality arose, That would be a far more interesting and "meaningful" discussion in this topic.


Round 2 Argument
As discussed before, The gender spectrum "has already received a wide embrace" 1. It has been accepted as a group of diverse individuals. To further the argument, The editor of ScientificAmerican states that "To varying extents, Many of us are biological hybrids on a male-female continuum" 1. Providing scientific data and analysis. Their validity has gone so far that legal rights have been created just for gender-fluid individuals 2. Organisations such as universities have invested large quantities of money for gender-fluid individuals 3. And even awards are given to people who identify in the gender spectrum 4.
It doesn't matter if it is a social construct but regarding that, Papers say its not 5.
What matters is that this diverse group of individuals who identify within the gender spectrum are accepted as valid.
So tell me how evolution explains this diversification.

"this really doesn't have anything to do with what i was hoping to discuss"
What? So am I only meant to talk about something that you want to discuss? What is the point of that debate then?
And if I were to discuss what you were "hoping to discuss" I will definitely lose. Diversification in the form of speciation is basically the definition of evolution.
You stated the topic of this debate and allowed me to have the opening statement as you said "Il let con make their opening statement". You therefore enabled me to interpret the topic as I pleased. And I have
I'm sorry if I interpreted it in a way that made it difficult for you to defend but as a debater, THIS IS MY JOB.

Sources are listed down below and numbered:
1. Scientificamerican article the-new-science-of-sex-and-gender
2. Guides. Vpl. Ca canada laws
3. Bristol-university-gender-neutral-toilets
4. Caitlyn Jenner moving speech
5. Scientific-research-shows-gender-is-not-just-a-social-construct
Debate Round No. 2


As implied by the title of this debate "Evolution explains the diversification of all life on Earth" this debate was meant for biological evolution, Not the evolution of different ideology's, I was hoping to discuss biological evolution, Because that was THE FOUNDATION of this debate in first place.

I allowed you to make your opening statement, That in no way implied that you could scue the debate off the topic which was more then obviously shown and explained in the title alone.

and as a debater it should be your job to debate the topic at hand.

"And if I were to discuss what you were "hoping to discuss" I will definitely lose. " then why the hell did you even accept this debate in the first place? Its like you knew what this debate was about in the first place and you were planning on scueing off topic from the very beginning.

If you want to debate the topic this debate is about thats fine, If not then don't waste my time.


Where in the title does it say "biological"? Please provide me any part of the title that strictly relates to the biological factors?
What I read is "Evolution explains the diversification of all life on Earth" please confirm.

With the topic, I shall explain my reasoning:
Human beings are considered life or living, Correct?
Human beings are mostly on Earth, Yes?
It is accepted that human beings can be diverse in the form of gender(as discussed in the previous round), Right?
So please explain to me how Evolution explains this diversification?

Did that reasoning go off topic? Does it skew the debate? (I assume you meant "skew" when you said "scue" *spelling check*)

"And if I were to discuss what you were "hoping to discuss" I will definitely lose. "
Well wouldn't I lose?
If I am restricted to only say things that you want to talk about, Then wouldn't you have a significant advantage?
The only restriction that should be applied is to prevent going off topic, But as I've pointed out, I've stayed completely within the topic.

I presume the "biological evolution" discussion you referred to was to do with "diversification in the form of speciation" which can undoubtedly be explained by evolution. However, That was only one branch of the topic. That was not the topic as a whole.

Instead of running away to make a new debate "Evolution is true" please answer the two questions I have.
1. How did I go off topic?
2. How does evolution explain the diversification of human beings (considered living, Majority live on Earth) that identify within the gender spectrum?
Debate Round No. 3


"Evolution explains the diversification of all life on Earth" Really? You are incapable of understanding what this meant -_-

You have wasted my time, Thank you for a debate that was ultimately useless.


There is no reason to talk down to me and question my mental state. I am fully capable of understanding the topic.

I have reasoned to you my argument.
I have allowed you to point out any flaws in my reasoning.
You still haven't addressed any of the questions I have put forth.

The only time being wasted, Is mine.
I have formulated rational arguments to defend my position and all I get in return are statements claiming that I have "skewed the debate off topic" which has no evidence or explanation.

"Thank you for a debate that. . . "
You are welcome :)

Round 5 is the last round. I would appreciate it if you would answer the two simplified questions before the debate is over.
1. How did I go off topic?
2. How does evolution explain the diversification of human beings (considered living, Majority live on Earth) that identify within the gender spectrum?
Debate Round No. 4


WhoPutYouOnThePlanet forfeited this round.


Pro forfeited: Extend arguments
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Shavo 3 years ago
So you say its "simply a theory" Do you know what a theory is? I mean scientifically, Not casually
A theory is not just a hunch when it comes to scientific terminology
As Jaime Tanner, A professor of biology at Marlboro College explains it, "the word theory refer to the way that we(scientist) interpret facts" 1.
Hank Green from crash course biology further explains "(evolution being) the theory that meticulously and precisely explains the facts and the fact are indisputable" 2.
So yes, Evolution is simply a theory. It simply explains the facts, The years of study, Research and evidence in the form of fossil, Geological records and dna comparisons. It has made an incredible impact on explaining "HOW nature made the leap from species to species" through methods of homologous and analogous structures.
Learn what you preach GuitarSlinger, Make sure you know the proper definition or it will be easy for others to rebut you

1. Https://www. Livescience. Com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory. Html
2. Https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=P3GagfbA2vo
Posted by Shavo 3 years ago
thanks omar2345
I had to delete half the argument but I think its good enough
Also search the sources on google. Sorry but debate. Org is dodgy when it comes to links
the second link (Canada law) is provided in my first round argument
Posted by Shavo 3 years ago
it still doesnt let me do anything
I can't even post it on comments
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
(Said this in another debate)


Are you having problems with posting your argument?

Instead of pasting the link of a source copy the title instead.

If that does not work post each paragraph in the comment section to see which one is the problem.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
THere is no gender spectrum. THere are two sexes, Period: male and female. How people view those two sexes (genders) differs, And is basically a matter of opinion.

Nature does not "create" a person's perception of how they view the sexes/genders. It's quite simply a product of the person's mind.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
Evolution is simply a theory. It doesn't nothing to explain HOW nature made the leap from species to species. People like to argue that people are very similiar to primates, But the fact remains, It's just a theory. Nothing in Evolution explains HOW we went from being chimpanzees to human, If that is indeed what happened.
Posted by Shavo 3 years ago
Also thx bluseto
And I don't care what Pro referred to. My argument is valid one within the restrictions of the debate topic. The debate never left the topic. It never outlined "the diversity of species in wildlife"
It simply stated the "diversification of all life on Earth"
I will not retire from this debate
But please tell me why my round 2 argument isn't posting -. -
Posted by Shavo 3 years ago
my argument for round 2 isn't posting :(
Why isn't my argument posting?
Posted by bluseto 3 years ago
I love the plot twist of the Con xD
He isn't totally wrong, The gender orientation is a part of the human behavior and therefore a part of diversification of life in Earth that evolution cannot explain (cause it's a social construction).
But Shavo (the Con), I think the Pro refered to the diversity of species in wildlife, Not to social constructions that humans have created after overcoming the Natural Selection. It's like saying that democracy is not explained by evolution.
As he refered to wildlife and not human social constructions, You changed the parameter of the debate. Please return to the debate topic or retire from the debate. There are other people that have proper arguments that would like to participate in it and fill in the topic.
Posted by Shavo 3 years ago
bjhqi, How did I change the parameter of the debate?
I'm con, I'm meant to disagree with the topic.
I provided one example that evolution didn't explain, Which thereby falsifies the topic which is my job.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by alexstilts 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: The Pro side is entirely correct here, with the Con side only taking the debate to attack gender studies.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.