Discuss with just facts?

submitted by loveSloaneDebate King from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

No they aren’t. You are arguing that your definition of women is more factual than mine because it fits your definition better. That’s not how definitions work. No one is disputing chromosome or physical realities. We are disagreeing about categorization.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I don’t have a definition. I’m using the actual definition that humans have been using since humans invented language and definitions. Lmao this is pointless. It sucks that you’re the only qt that replied to this post because we all know you don’t deal with fact. You can keep saying my definition isn’t fact but the truth is almost 100% of the human population uses the same definitions as I do. You are placing so much weight on a definition that you can’t even offer. You can’t define woman or man or male or female. We’ve asked you to several times ans you never have done it. You honestly do me so many favors. Every time you comment you make me realize things that I hadn’t even gotten to myself yet. You’re one of the best tools in my arsenal lol. You always help me see more truth in what I’m saying, based on your responses. Right now, you’ve proven to me that qt cannot make a single fact based argument, and that a lot of transwomen think they should be an exception to every rule, because- well I guess just because they say so lol. Thank you! We make a great team.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

“The actual definition”. That’s not how definitions work. We disagree between 2 accepted definitions and no physical facts. Yours isn’t more “factual” because there’s no disagreement on facts. This is a language dispute.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Yours isn’t factual at all so it’s odd that you’d even go there but, okay buddy, okay.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

My definition is exactly as factual as yours. There’s no difference in the factual basis for determination on either. We aren’t disputing facts, we are disagreeing about how definitions should interpret understood facts. That’s my point.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Okay sure thing 😂😂😂😂

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Emojis aren’t a factual argument Sloane, but we always knew what this was about.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

😂😂😂 Im sorry I just can’t take what you’re saying seriously since it doesn’t make any sense. We may as well say no fact exists because anyone can just say they disagree or see things differently lmao

The emojis represent the fact that I’m laughing really hard, so I guess even they are more factual than your statements.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

You refusing to recognize the difference between observable facts and language doesn’t you can just ignore how language works. I don’t know why I ever bother with you.

It’s just 50 posts of intellectual dishonesty veiling your obvious hatred of trans people. You ignore everything I say then insult me. Then repeat next thread.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

State the facts, then. What fact exists that says that a male can be a woman or a female can be a man, what facts exist that prove that the definitions humans have been using forever for these words are not accurate and factual? Provide us with your definition, and explain how it is based in fact. I think it’s fucking hilarious that you are accusing me of ignoring how language works. If you had any factual basis for what you’re saying you’d have provided it by now. That was literally the whole point of my post. To see if your side could argue solely based in facts. So far you’ve proven that you cannot. I didn’t ignore what you said. If I had, I wouldn’t have laughed or responded. It’s like you think we have to change our minds if we listen, listening doesn’t mean what you say makes sense.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I think they're getting to upset to engage anymore