On balance, gender is more nature than nurture.

Mittens' Hidden Trump Card - The Impacts1. ResolutionWhile Pro does state: "To affirm the resolution, I must prove that societal views of the sexes are derived from the biological differences between the sexes, and not from external factors"This burden is false. Look at it this way.Even if Pro can show that sex is derived from biological differences - meaning that the origins of our views of sex is biological, it does not actually affirm the resolution.I call this: The False Burden. Sex and Gender are not the same thing, and Pro concedes that when he accepted that Sex does not define Gender. So even if he proves that sex is derived from bio differences - he still doesn't affirm the resolution. So we are forced to guess that maybe Pro meant gender instead of sex. OK. Let's pretend that he does.Close your eyes and imagine it. :)"To affirm the resolution, I must prove that societal views of the gender are derived from the biological differences between the gender, and not from external factors"In this iteration, Pro states that if he can show that our views of gender originate from biological factors, then he affirms the resolution.This is still a False Burden. The resolution states: "Gender is more nature than nurture."The resolution does not say: "Gender originates from nature"Which is totally different.Pro has to show that Gender is more nature.While I, as Con, have to show that Gender is more nurture.This was heavily implied in my intro round, and is further supported by the resolution itself.Pro needs to prove that societal factors are less significant than genetic factors in the definition of gender in our society. Pro's first argument - that gender originates from biological differences - has completely nothing to do with this debate.2. Pro's Argument 1So let me go a bit more into this argument.Pro's impact of this is that biological factors has had a more significant influence to gender than societal factors. We are ultimately not given any way to measure why or how it is more significant, only that Pro asserts so. For example, simple arithmetic was the origins of mathematics. The prehistoric human was capable of taking one stick, putting it next to another stick, and recognizing that there are now two sticks (even monkeys and parrots(1) can do that). Can we call these sticks - or whatever object(s) that prompted the first man to conceive the notion of basic arithmetic - the origins of math? Well sure, but ultimately it was the man who conceived of the idea that 1+1=2. Not the stick. Similarly, it is man who conceived of the idea of both gender and sex. Not the penis. Not the behavioral patterns we see in and across species.There is no reason to accept that the origins of gender has anything to do with its impact. Since it has been shown that Pro's impact is demonstrably false, it follows that the impact to it cannot be accepted until Pro has given sufficient evidence. Since he has not, even if we accept that gender does have influence from biological sex, his argument holds zero weight.3. Pro's Argument 2Now the impact of this argument does in fact add points to nature as related to gender. If Pro can show that the influence of biological sex to gender is more than that of societal factors, than he does indeed affirm the resolution. But he doesn't. This argument merely shows that bio sex has some influence to gender. But since gender is not defined by biological sex, the similarity in their terminology in no way signifies that there is any causal relation. Pro commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Even if Pro's argument - that there is influence from biological sex to gender, he never weighs it. He'd merely show that there is an influence. He wouldn't show that this influence exceeds that of the factors that I've presented. In fact, the factors that I've presented - that gender is defined by society; that the concept of gender is taught; that Solon is a weeaboo - give a real, quantitative measure that shows that nurture outweighs nature.But I will weigh my own arguments later. Next!4. Pro's Argument 3As for argument 3, Pro states that gender is losing relevance and states transgenderism and similar such ideas as the source. I state that gender is being redefined to which he responds with the definitions we've agreed to. In no way does my contention that gender is being societally redefined contradict the definitions we agreed to. I could accept that a square has four sides, but also state that mathmeticians are in the process of redefining it. Pro's response is nonsensical and doesn't actually address my refutation.In any case, let me reiterate last round: "using the same data that Pro presents, I draw a separate conclusion. If Pro cannot show that his conclusion is more solid or even relevant, then this particular contention is meaningless."Even if Pro can show that gender is losing relevance to society (which it is not), it doesn't actually show that gender is more nature than nurture nor does it even remotely relate to nature vs. nurture. This particular contention does not affirm the resolution in any way whatsoever. Both argument 1 and argument 3 bear absolutely zero weight to this debate.5. Sex is a Human ConceptI will specifically address Pro's rebuttals from the previous round:"Males have sexual organs designed to fertilize the egg. Females have sexual organs to carry the egg and to allow it to be fertilized"Pro defines the distinctions of biological sex. But sex is not gender, and these distinctions do not define gender. Nope."Children aren’t born knowing the names of the colors. Does that mean that when they look at an apple, they are unable to see this color just because they don’t have a name to the concept?"No, but the denomination of "red", the fact that it is called "red" specifically, is based entirely on nurture factors. It is taught, which is the very definition of what it means to be based on nurture. Also, this analogy isn't very good. Gender is defined by many ever-changing facets (i.e. gender roles). I have clearly shown that gender roles change at the whim of society when I noted the radical change of gender roles since the 1900's via societal movement (e.g. feminism).And since gender inextricably defines and is defined by gender roles, the mutable nature of gender under environmental and societal influence has been empirically shown, and proves that society's influence over gender vastly transcends biological expectations and standards.6. Gender is a Social ConceptAs with my previous refutation, the fact that the concept of gender must be taught means that nurture is a necessary and thus extremely significant factor in defining what gender is. True, manifestations of behavior can occur from biological, genetic factors related to sex. But sex is not gender. Indeed, since behavior of the different sexes differ widely across species (i.e. emperor penguins) whatever gender-role features we define gender by cannot be any more than a human, social concept. they are arbitrary.As a miscellaneous aside: the conclusion that Pro uses to assert that emperor penguin females being tired after laying the egg and needing to feed doesn't actually appear anywhere in the article that he cited for that. Basically, Pro made up the statement and then attached the source - a false refutation.My evidence via emperor penguins - and various other species - stand (on their eggs). Thus my point holds. A baby doesn't know anything about gender and gender roles. The only way they can know is if these are things that are taught to them as they grow up (i.e. girls wear dresses, boys wear pants). Gender is defined by people; by nurture.ConclusionBoth my points are entirely more significant than Pro's single point (argument 2). Even if argument 2 holds, Pro has given no solid impact. Its influence on gender is nominal at best and are outweighed by my arguments.SourcesBroken link(4) from last round: http://tinyurl.com...(1) http://tinyurl.com...