That is irrelevant and again proof that people here would fail a debate class.

What is relevant and the common foundational point there is an exploration of this question:

- In any areas of able bodied human versus amputee with VARIOUS kinds of technology assist, how do we determine and set a standard of fairness for ANY SITUATION we may be presented with in the future and asked to adjudicate as a commission, when that technology so far EXCEEDS able bodied contestants ability to even be competitive'?

Plugging in a specific, ANY SPECIFIC, technology is irrelevant. You can just leave it at X and the question/issue and answer will be the same.


The reason I resort to examples (what people call extreme) is because when people envision the tech as the Terry Fox leg where the person cannot win they are far more likely to ignore unintended consequences and rationalize it as ok.

When you say however, that decision allows for the advanced tech (blade or eBike) equally, they then SEE the error that did not have the foresight to see without the 'extreme' example.

And we have seen that wrong logic 'exactly' applied here.

What's the false premise?

I didn't say that things work in uni but not in the real world. This is you either not understanding the position or being incredibly uncharitable.

What I said is that when it comes to rhetorical strategy and argumentation that there are a myriad of contexts and goals someone might have such that this idea of having one structure above all else is an incredibly naive view.

Your position might be perfectly good in a cabinet meeting, but it might be inferior when in Parliament. It might be worse when a prosecution or defence lawyer is trying to swing a jury. Which might be different to how a lawyer tries to persuade a judge on a motion. Which might be different to how I convince someone that their doubts about the product I'm selling are misplaced.

You're showing a tremendous lack of imagination here if you don't think that there are different approaches when it comes to presenting or addressing arguments.

This is the false premise

Arguments and points get drown by addressing garbage erroneous points and explaining why they are wrong constantly.

That is exactly why the Trump tactic is to drown all discussions in false premises and force them to be refuted.

Your consistent view that 'what is foundational good logic and structure for getting at truths and addressing the ACTUAL point is good for Uni or Politics but not for common debates is just stupidity.

Stupidity you will continue to repeat but stupidity none the less.

There are no different approaches to engaging in debate with people who have taken a position based on an obvious false premise you can easily expose as such.

You make the person address the premise first and either prove it out or not.


My Trump voter ID argument highlighted above highlights the folly of veering from that approach. That you hand wave it away and say 'that is the right way to approach it there' but 'not here' is just silly.

It works because it works. Disregarding it because 'its not politics' is just nonsense.

Ok, now you are just lying or VERY confused. This bit about motorcycles is yet a new tangent you've decided to walk down and not present at all in post 426 that I quoted. But even so, so ****ing what? Who other than the various sports commissions should be the ones setting the rules for the sports they are charged to set the rules for? You? GOP politicians? This is the most banal comment ever, and yet you magically reinterpreted that comment as me valuing competition in sports at zero. This should be an important moment for you because it is just so clear how you are utterly failing to debate against the actual viewpoints others have. If you want to actually hold your own in these debates, you really need to slow down and listen to what others are saying and stop imposing your made up views on them.

The sad part is you seem MUCH more comfortable engaging in these protracted back and forths about fringe hypotheticals like this one, then actually spending time to focus on the actual harms being caused to our transgender youth today.

Let's focus a bit on the political/legal situation to bring this trainwreck of a conversation back to earth. Right now we are seeing hundreds of anti-trans proposed bills led by the GOP in states across the US. Broadly speaking these bills aim to do two things: ban youth trans kids playing in the youth sports of their gender, and banning gender-affirming medical care. For example, a 17 year old would not be able to undergo hormone therapy in consultation with their parents and doctors under most of these rules.

So first question: do those supporting excluding trans kids in sports ITT also support the medical side of these bills?

Now, this is slow moving right now. Idaho was first in 2020, but there is a court injunction. https://casetext.com/case/hecox-v-little. There's a LOT of juicy smackdown of the transphobic arguments, but here is the summary:

This leads to my second question for those opposed to including trans kids in sport: do you think it should be up to the state to deny this? As in, it is fine to have your opinion and advocate for it at the school board meeting, say, but do you think the state should be the one legislating whether or not a girl is allowed on the school baseball team?

Nobody is 'opposed to including trans kids in sport'. That is a straw man. The suggestion is that, ethically, male-bodied athletes must compete with male-bodied athletes and not against women and girls. The contrary proposal is misogynistic and aimed at humiliating women and girls and eliminating them from sport at any serious level, whether high-school, college, national or international.

Do you truly believe that this is the aim of such proposals, or are you just saying things for effect?

If that was the case women athletes and women's sports organizations would be leading the charge rather than the GOP. Reality being the opposite leads me to conclude that it's about excluding and denormalizing trans individuals.

nonsense. I’ve never heard an advocate for trans inclusion aim to be humiliating women. What a disgusting characterization. If you really need it typed out in full every time to be able to process, I’ll make it “include trans kid in sports consistent with their gender”. For fairly obvious reasons, giving a young girl the only option to join a men’s team isn’t a meaningful option. Regardless, you didn’t actual answer the posed question: do you think states should be regulating the types of sports teams our kids are allowed to participate in?

Then I don't think you know what a premise is. A premise isn't any proposition stated as true. weren't you saying I don't understand logic earlier?



Some of Trump's tactics were effective in getting him into power and enacting policy. If that's his goal then it's not clear why he ought follow what you think is "proper debate structure"

Here's the problem everyone has with you itt. I never said this. Then you said I did so I told you I never said this. And now you repeat it again while calling others liars and trolls.

I've already given you several situations in which different approaches to rhetoric could be applied.

This is just a tremendous lack of imagination from you. People have different goals when "debating". That means sometimes lying, sometimes being honest, sometimes appealing to emotion, sometimes being cold and detached, sometimes being calm, sometimes getting heated.

This reminds me of the Donnie Darko scene where he's asked to mark on the line between love and fear. You can't just rule out the entire spectrum of human discourse and reduce it to the one standard you think is always applicable.

Not banal at all. It is core.

Sports Commissions have never INTRUDED in to sport to determine who wins or can win. NEVER.

That sports commission establish rules of play within a Fair Playing Field that are the SAME for all.

This would be a vast departure from that where Sports Commissions first ALLOW Tech to be used that no able bodied human is able to compete with which then NECISSITATES the Commission to then decide on these questions I posted upthread...


You think it is fine and that Sport Commission should get to decide on this and why not?

I say no, expanding discretion to who can win ENDS competitive sport.

I absolutely believe that many people (including most active in this thread 'for') have just made a values choice that they don't really care if that is the outcome and perhaps (some more softer think) "i can see it is a possibility or even a likelihood but accept that risk as I think the potential gain is worth any loss here in CIS girls competitive athletics'.

I would have to think people were daft if they could not recognize this potential threat to CIS woman sport given the success examples, in such a short time frame that some transwomen have had. The almost instantaneous success at near the top levels, with probably far less than One Millionth of the participation rate in said sports.

How many women since the sports inception have tried and failed to Medal at World Games level, in any weight lifting category?

And how many Transwomen tried the same before, Laurel Hubbard, 20 years PAST HER ATHLETIC prime as a CIS Male was setting records, and who won 2 Silver medals at her advanced age as a Transwoman, for the sport?




If you cannot foresee women's sporting records being shattered and put beyond reach for decades or perhaps all time for the CIS females, based on the low participation rate versus success ratio transwomen have enjoyed thus far, you have to be putting on willful blinders.

LOL. You take a paragraph where I basically talk about how you've got your mind made up about an issue you don't fully understand and that it's a shame that you don't recognize that and/or have any interest in learning, and you proceed to explain yet again how to win a debate.

Best of luck to you in your debates. Chalk this one up as a "W" if you like.

Wow.

Not sure what is 'wow' worthy.

Anyone who would allow advanced technology into a foot race against an able bodied person where the able bodied person had no chance, ZERO to ever win a race unless the Commissioners make a choice to dial it back so they can win or come in second or third or whatever is ABSO F*CKIN LUTELY not concerned with eliminating able bodied competitors from being able to compete at any level. And both are being litigated in courts suing the same core argument for that access.

And that is a common position in this thread.

It is no different when you switch tech advantage for the transfemale advantage I highlight in the Laurel Hubbard example. Any advantage one group brings to the playing field that the others have no access to is 100% substitutable and the same in terms of this debate as they both cause the same outcome. The 'other' cannot compete and win on a fair playing field.


If the CIS Male setting those records as a 20 year old had today's climate and transitioned then instead, she would have then been an instant world record holder and only today, more than 20 years later would a single woman, breaking all sorts of records today have beat it.

Meanwhile in the same 20 CIS men have also progressed so one transitioning today would blow out that woman today who finally caught up and set the bar out of reach for likely the next 20 years.


So ya, 'WOW'... what?

Wow, reality... I don't like it being said??

I don't why Cuepee thinks that genociding anyone he thinks is too good in a given sport is a good idea.

I think it's obviously wrong to genocide people but he keeps on saying it.

I was with you here. But then something magical happened and you ended up with the most outrageous reimagining
You are a terrible debater.

I want you to notice something quite important. Every time you are in some bizarre hypothetical of imaginary sports commissions letting rocket controlled jet packs mean legless trans people win the martian olympics you talk and talk and talk yourself in circles about what I must value. But then when the topic circles back to actually concretely discussing the actual harms happening to actual people right now by the actual laws passed by actual politicians it is just utter crickets.

Wow.

Best of luck to you in your debates. Chalk this one up as a "W" if you like.

I know. That's the problem.

You appear to consider yourself the master of interpreting what other people "really" mean when they post things, and people telling you otherwise makes no difference. It's why you're pretty much impossible to have a conversation with in this thread. I've given up, it looks like uke has as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if more follow soon. More "W"s for you...enjoy!

In his defence he can beat up a kangaroo

Actually world class debaters like me should have little trouble getting Cuepee to write "Hmmm. I hadn't thought about that. I think I should just maybe reconsider." Watch.

Hi Cuepee.

You are doing a nice job of defending your position on this matter. You are standing firm in the face of objections from some pretty smart posters. Partly, I would suspect, because you know that there are many who are often considered equally smart who you know would agree with you completely, but for whatever reason, don't post on this forum. The best example would be Toothsayer.

Not really.

I asked the question what does 1+1 =

Someone answered 3.

I don't care how they try to rationalize they were answering a question I did not ask, when they hit the reply button to my question and responded to it.

That is a silly game played in forum land when someone responds hastily, later through debate realizes they took an indefensible position that is wrong but does not want to admit it.


I was crystal clear and put it in bullet points to make sure in many posts so no one could deny what I was asking...

- once ALLOWED, and when tech that enhances amputee athletes exceeds able bodied persons ability to compete by multiples of X and the ONLY WAY a able bodied person can compete is by a Commission or Engineer dialing back the technology and thus deciding in that very arbitrary decision if they will allow the able bodied person to win or the amputee to win (as they have that sole choice and power), how would that be decided as to where they would be allowed to finish?


ANSWER - I am ok allowing the Commission to decide that.

There is no denying, and it is not opinion, even if you say 'wow', that the competitive element of sport is dead at that moment in time.

When the contestants actually have no say or ability via training to determine outcomes and simple choice by the Commission to allow the amputee athlete to run at 2X the top speed of Usain Bolt, competition is dead.


Deny, deflect or try to dodge this in any way does not change the FACT that this is the death of competition and more than one person has replied to my question saying they are fine with it.

And this is not some wild hypothetical that is unlikely to occur. It is as near a certainty as we can bet on that tech advancements will scale much faster than human improvements can keep up.

They are already following a Moore's law progression curve if you look at the earliest enhancements/robotics compared to today and Venture capital money and military money is pouring into this sector trying to achieve these results for their own ends where they now deem these critical needs.

Haha David, yes that comment does cut me to the quick.

While I understand proper debate structure and WHY it is applicable in any discussion if your goal is to get resolution in reflection I would not give myself a passing grade in thread.

I failed my own test.

Someone else who properly uses the same debate structure is ecriture d'adulte.

In almost every engagement you see him in, before he even engages the subject you are broaching, if you have built a premise on inaccurate information or poor sourcing he engages with that first.

He generally asks 'do you understand though that what you cited is inaccurate' or other such piercing questions and then he moves on once he highlights your foundational error.

He understands that once he has undermined or destroyed the inaccurate foundation he does not need to even engage the arguments built upon them.

And he often digs for that source while ignoring the inaccurate arguments.


I fail as I expose the faulting foundation but then engage in the faulty arguments anyway. Arguments that are often laced with opinion that people will simply never agree over. Thus why you go after the factual source.

Answer this for me David, if you will.

Some here suggest that addressing the foundation and challenging it for accuracy or truth is not the way to address forum discussions like this or other discussions that are more casual and that should be limited to University debate or Politics, etc.

Would you ever agree with that?

That regardless of avenue, if someone is trying to build an argument based on a foundation you can clearly show is ill informed and wrong, that you simply ignore that?

I love how DS's core ideology is about "smart people" (i.e. people like me who have math phds) and appealing to their intellect. The funny thing is that of all hundreds of math phds I know and interact with on a day to day basis, I've never heard one of them ever do these kinds of appeals.

Great. Your side issue about the tech-enhanced athletes has never interested me. I understand how it's related to the topic at hand, but its resolution in favour of what's right for sports and competition would not have anywhere near the same potential for negative impacts as that of the topic of this thread.

That has nothing to do with the "wow" in question.

Let's roll back the tape:

One can decide that the impact on young trans girls outweighs other factors, and still care about the outcomes for CIS women. I doubt a single person in this thread doesn't care about those outcomes, and why you would assume otherwise is beyond me - this is exactly what I meant when I said that you "consider yourself the master of interpreting what other people 'really' mean when they post things"; you do it continuously. If I were to use the same strategy to interpret what you "really" mean, I'd say that you have made a values choice that you don't really care about the outcome for trans kids in schools. But such an interpretation is bizarre to me - I of course assume that you believe the cost to competition outweighs the concerns about trans kids, not that you don't care about them. Your belief is based on a great deal of ignorance about trans kids' plights, but that doesn't mean you don't care.