- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
I'm glad to see someone presenting arguments which are not cluttered with ad hominem attacks, unlike other specific debaters. The main problem I have with you argument is that you claim the past, present, and future do not exist, however this statement is false. I believe a more accurate statement would be: "The past, present, and time, are all the same thing, when looking at the universe from an external view rather than internal"
"Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason." as Orson Welles says. Your frequent, and temperamental use of ad hominems, do not help further your argument, and in fact, lessen your credibility.
The least that could be asked of you would be to construct your insults more clever and mindfully. I refuse to debate a topic with someone who resorts to things like assuming me of bestiality and wishing cancer upon me, for doing nothing more then presenting an argument against free will.
Calm and logical debate drive truth to its maximum effectiveness. Sadly, calmness and logic are two things you seem to be lacking right now. As Socrates famously said "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
I rest my case.
To support your false claim that I lied in my refutation about twins separated at birth you cited one article by Pink News, in which the website, which I may say is very liberal, was publishing about the ongoing study as an advertisement. I think you clearly have failed to look deep into any evidence at all.
In fact this is the sign up page for their survey: https://essex.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/
Where at the top they claim they are only contacting twins who are of different sexual orientation.
If you want to talk about lying; the only arguments that could be even closely embodying a lie, would be ones from you, as it is a whole different debate on were the line crosses from lack of credibility to lack of honesty.
It is a common phrase "The smarter you get the less you speak", and this is a fine example of that. I am not talking about quantity but specifically context. In your second refutation point you made some broad scientific claims and statements about neuroscience in which I can easily tell credibility is lacking.
Neurotransmitters and hormones are both are chemicals in the brain that carry messages throughout the body, so making the distinction between the two, as you did, and then throwing in completely unrelated matters such as preconceived religion and how one defines instinct, completely shows the huge problem with ethos (or lack of) through your whole refutation.
The overall claim you are making, but for some reason putting behind loaded wording, is: because there are some what consistent characteristics, or traits in populations that correlate with things like profession and geographic location, it is nurture that caused that, and it had nothing at all to do with genetics. If this were true then things like fears, desires, and neurological make up, would have nothing to do with ones personality.
This whole contention can be brought down by the observations of twins separated at birth. There are countless studies and research that show the similarity in life style and personality between twins who had been separated at birth. Many of these individuals having the same injuries, same mental problems, same cars, and even same jobs.
In conclusion your whole argument is based of a straw man claim that "so many ways the exact same DNA's personality type can end up in life." when in reality evidence shows that DNA is highly dependent on not only neurological factors as I addressed in my argument, but also personality and life style factors.
almost all human behavior and personality can be explained through the clockwork laws of cause and effect.
To determine why you do something, it starts at the neurons. Their is a consensus among the scientific community, that the firing of neurons determines not just some or most, but all of our thoughts, hopes, memories, and dreams.
Furthermore instances of normal adults becoming pedophiles or murderers after developing a brain tumor proves how the causes and behaviors of what we do are very dependent on the gray matter and neurons in our brain.
The number of court cases that have used evidence from neuroscience has doubled in the last decade. This is because what has been known in the laboratory for decades, and the philosophy class room for centuries, has now started to seep into the justice system. This is not to say there is going to be, or should be a time with no moral accountability, but simply shows that most actions, characteristics, physical or mental changes you make are a determinate of nature not of nurture.
52% of teenagers do not identify as exclusively heterosexual. (according to a report by the J. Walter Thompson Innovation Group) 35% of Millennials fall in the same category, and the percentage keeps declining as you move to older generations. This is because gender identity is not primarily caused by nature, but by things like upbringing, your environment, and your education. I stand in affirmation of the following resolution: Gender identity is caused more by nurture rather than nature. We present the following framework to begin, gender identity: a person's perception of having a particular gender, which may or may not correspond with their birth sex. Nature: inborn or hereditary characteristics as an influence on or determinant of personality. And finally nurture: upbringing, education, and environment, as an influence on or determinant of personality. We will argue this case with the following two contentions:
Contention 1: Gender identity is formed through learned behavior.
Contention 2: Gender identity and norms in society are always changing.
Gender identity is formed through learned behavior. It is important a critical distinction be made; gender identity and biological gender are two different things. To put it very simply, gender identity is how one identifies, while biological gender is dependent on the sex organs one has. The contention that gender identity is formed through learned behavior is purely scientific. Countless studies, such as the comprehensive breakdown published in the journal Nature,( for just one example,) show that learned behavior does in fact play a substantial role in gender. From the day a baby leaves their mother's womb, they are given objects and put in scenarios which almost wholly shape their gender identity. Think of a little girl who is given dolls and make up, as well as pink clothes and accessories from the time she is just a child. On the other side, boys are assigned the color blue from young, and instead of playing with makeup and dolls they play with trucks and guns. I can’t speak for my opponents, but I believe there is a consensus in this room that there is no gene, which invokes boys to like trucks and girls to like dolls. That is because these characteristics expressed through their gender identity are primarily learned behavior and basic social cues. You ought to care about this because by acknowledging that gender identity is determined from learned behavior, you are philosophically eliminating any reason to be hateful toward one’s gender.
Gender identity and norms in society are always changing. Before this debate it is important to ask yourself, what are certain forms of identities that are undoubtedly caused by nature? For a second take into consideration physical identity, or possibly human identity. Identifying with one's own physical traits or type of species is clearly caused primarily by nature. Gender identity is different. Gender identity changes as your mind learns and develops. Developments which are caused by you observing and learning from your environment. If gender identity truly is caused primarily by nature, then we would not see the change in gender norms that we do today. Woman deciding to join the labor force have risen from 26.9% to 46.6% from 1950 to 2000 as reported by The US Labor Force. Furthermore gender identification also changes over time and age. As I stated in my introduction, older generations identify far more of the time With being heterosexual, than younger generations. It is clear that by recognizing gender roles, and how they change, we are helping minimize the negative stigma that comes along in communities when the change of gender norms occur.
In conclusion, there is no for sure answer when it comes to the question if gender identity is caused primarily by nurture or nature. That is something both my opponent and I can all agree on. The resolution is unfalsifiable to some extent on both ends. However I believe with the evidence, stats, and logical reasoning, I have presented in my two contentions, I have strongly supported the resolution that gender identity is caused more by nurture rather than nature. You ought to care about the resolution set forth because understanding gender identity is a crucial part in the flourishing of an innovative society. Also many credible medical and scientific organizations have conceded that gender identity is caused more by nurture rather than nature. By voting a pro ballot you are not only on the right side of history, but also of science. Thank you.
You claim that the statement "all bottom feeders are at the top" is factual, when having presented no evidence. You state how I am unable to disprove this because I haven't provided any evidence, however in this case, the burden of evidence is on the one making the statement, not the one denying it.
For example take the statement "All hard working people are at the top". To realize this statement is false only takes a basic level of intellectual ability and common sense. The current resolution at hand falls under the same problem. Having known only one bottom feeder who is not at the top, falsifies the statement that "all bottom feeders are at the top".
You have yet to address my observation that the resolution is begging the question. The resolution is still based off of a falsifiable claim, which was clearly the main contention in my argument, however you spent time cherry picking the few parts you found easiest to refute. I challenge you to DIRECTLY address this claim: "The resolution contains a begging the questing fallacy, because it contains a falsifiable claim"
The resolution implies that every single person at the top is a "bottom feeder". The amount of bottom feeders at the top can be debated, however it is indisputable that not all people at the top are bottom feeders.
The top 1% is always changing. Reports show only 5.8% of people in the top 1% will be in it for 2 or more years. If the resolution, that everyone at the top is a bottom feeder, is true, then that means anyone who has won the lottery, inherited a large sum of money, or just worked hard to get where they are at, would be labeled as a bottom feeder.
For these reasons I argue that the resolution brought forth, expresses a "begging the question fallacy". The resolution asks a question, but for the question to be valid, it must already be assumed the the claim "All bottom feeders are at the top" is true and factual, which it is not.
Furthermore the resolution implies that there are no bottom feeders at the bottom, which is simply an oxymoron. I believe I have presented multiple knock down arguments with my case.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!