Pro
#1
So angels are a third gender.
Then, the creation account is complex, showing the complexity of gender.
Most arguments used for the binary gender categorization just use arguments from silence.
Choose your TRANS-lation. Whatever version there is TRANS.
Round 1
1 of 4
Pro
#1
Con
#2
For the record, I am a Christian apostate. I do not and would not consider the Bible an authority on this subject. It was written long before gender identity was understood and the symbolism in it does not account for the full picture of humanity that we now accept.
Let us move forward.
Pro submits Angels as third Biblical gender, but this is a category error. Gender is a biological classification. Angels are spiritual beings without biology. Besides this, when they are manifested in the material world, they are always represented physically and visually as masculine. As such, angels do not represent a third Biblical gender.
Pro's second argument is unclear- what about the creation account supports their position?
In actuality, the Creation account explicitly supports my position. Genesis 1 establishes gender as an intentional binary creation of the Biblical god reflecting his dual nature:
Genesis 1:27: So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Genesis 2 gives account of Eve being created from the rib of Adam. This, again, explicitly paints a picture of two genders being halves of a greater whole. This is a reflection of the two distinct complimentary halves of God.
Gen 2:18: Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.
Back to you, Pro.
Round 2
2 of 4
Pro
#3
FORFEITED
Con
#4
Extend arguments
Round 3
3 of 4
Pro
#5
FORFEITED
Con
#6
Extend arguments
Round 4
4 of 4
Pro
#7
FORFEITED
Con
#8
Vote Con! Thank you!
I have actually embarrassed many biologists in similar debates. I always held position that biology isnt a real science but just something real science laughs at.
So I come to debate a biologist on topic of evolution, and he starts yapping about how evolution happened and how species evolved.
So I ask him "Can you define species?".
I was actually expecting him to be able to define it given that he is a biologist, but no. Biology cant even define the very terms it uses. Its pathetic, honestly.
At the end, he was unwillingly arguing that fire is species because it grows and reproduces. This was after he said that reproduction is passing on the genes, and I asked "How do you know that thats reproduction?".
I mean, anyone who believes there are only 2 genders is either insane or retarded.
Even if someone is retarded enough to assume gender and sex are same things, he would still be wrong because some people dont even have genitals and some are not capable of reproduction so they dont fit the "male/female" definitions at all.
Tetrahymena thermophila: This microscopic, single-celled ciliate protozoan has seven distinct sexes (mating types) that can freely interact, hook up, and exchange genetic material.
Chromosomal and Anatomical Variations: Not all bodies fit neatly into the typical XX or XY binary. Variations include conditions such as Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), Turner syndrome (X0), or other chromosomal differences.
Intersex / DSD: Up to 1% of the population is born with differences of sex development (DSD), where reproductive or sexual anatomy doesn't fit the typical definitions of strictly male or female. While medical and biological consensus largely views these as developmental variations rather than separate, distinct biological sexes, they highlight that physical and genetic traits exist along a spectrum.
#1
| Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con |
|---|---|---|---|
| Winner |
Full Forfeit; pro's sole argument doesn't reference any bible verses. I like pro; but I have to be honest.