Clase 06

[Music]

Good evening. Today we'll have a

debate class.

We have two topics:

gender ideology and abortion.

We'll start with the abortion topic. Those in

favor are María

Fernanda, Ana Luisa, and Andranco. I'll tell you the last

name Cabrera Calderón, Chango,

Miss Beatriz, and Ruiz. And those

against are Chasipanta Chávez Guayo, Melisa

Quinoluza, Brunela Otoya, Eduardo Llanes, and

José Luis García. Okay, so let's

begin. I'm going to use my phone to

set a

one-minute time limit for each presentation.

Okay, so

please, let's begin.

[Music]

First, those in favor of abortion,

please. Let's begin. Please

raise your hands so

I can start grading the

people who are going to speak.

So, raise your hands if you're going to

start with the pro-abortion topic I

mentioned.

Please raise your hands.

On the team, no, no, you're not raising me,

Mr. Juan Pablo. Hair parted, huh?

Look at the

elegance

of your head, brother. Adán hasn't

gotten that far yet. Okay, I have four

people. I need two more. Let's begin

with Allison, you have one minute to

defend your position. Let me

explain how this works. Sorry,

this is my fourth debate, so

I think you already know it by heart. I'll give you

one minute. In this minute, you're going to defend your

position for or against what you

consulted. Okay, we have one

minute, and then the alarm will sound, and that's it. That's it. Now,

what are you going to

defend? You're going to give your argument to

defend this position in favor of this

practice. Those who are

against, please take notes on

a piece of paper or separately, I don't know. And you're going to

detect any fallacies in the people

who give the argument in favor. Once

the people who give the argument in

favor have

presented, then it will be your turn to give

your argument against. And the people

who give their argument, who previously gave the

argument in favor, will detect and note

if the previous people, those who gave

the argument against,

used any fallacies or if you noticed

any fallacies. Okay? And it doesn't

matter if you don't remember the name

of the fallacy; the point is that we know it's

a flaw in reasoning. And if you

can see, they say And I'll tell you the name

of the fallacy. So first, we're going to have

each

person in favor speak for one minute, and then each person against speak for one minute. When

the people against speak, we'll

take note of any

fallacies we detect. When the people in the

second group, that is, the people

against, speak, we'll do

the same. If we find

any fallacies, we'll begin in this order:

Alison Calderón, then Ivette

Andrango, then María Fernanda, Ana Luisa

Estefanía Cabrera, and Lorena Ruiz, in that

order. So, get ready.

Sorry, we'll start with Allison. Allison, can

you hear me?

Where are you? I can't see you. I can't see you. Okay,

Alison, we'll start with you. You have one

minute. Let's begin. And now,

the reason I'm in favor of

abortion is that

we have to keep in mind that

most people are low-income and can't have these children, or there's

also the possibility that they're of a certain

age. So,

abortion can be used to save the

life of this person, of course, also taking into

account the months and stage of gestation

the fetus is in. There's

also the other point. That

he has increased illegal abortions too much

due to unsafe abortions. So what

happens is that these people

are mistreated by the

clinics. Therefore, these women die,

around

three to four thousand. Thank you very much, thank

you very much, just when you were going to give me the

data. How many are there?

Excuse me, how many? 4,000

to

431,614 women who die because of

unsafe abortions? Where? That's

worldwide.

Okay, ready. Thank you very much, Allison. I

also have my hand raised,

please lower it. Ivette,

good evening everyone. My name is

Ivette from Durango and I am in favor of

abortion because currently there is a high

number of pregnant teenagers

and they

have to have the emotional

and economic capacity to be able to

support a child since most

people cannot do it. And

also

there are countless

clandestine abortions that put the life of

the woman at risk since I am aware that it is

my body and it is my decision. Okay,

thank you very much,

wait, I am taking some

notes.

A coordinator. Okay,

thank you very much, please

lower your hand. Ivette Maria

Fernanda Ana Luisa, please, your minute

of fame is starting. You

no longer have the decision of any

kind, and excuse the redundancy, to

decide when to be a mother, and much less,

for example, I am

practically in favor of abortion because there are

rapes of girls, there are also some

kind of malformation, and if one can

avoid the pain that can be experienced in the future, one can

have a child, then it can be

done. Obviously,

the weeks of pregnancy must be respected

so that one can make this kind of

decision. In addition to that, each person

has the right to decide, more than anything, about

their life,

and I do

n't know.

Okay, and just like that, your time is ending, don't

worry.

Thank you very much.

Lower the damn María Fernanda

Estefani Estefanía Cabrera, now you can

hear me. Good night.

I already looked into it, and I think this covers my

opinion, which in relation to the right to

freedom in article 66, two, three, four, ten,

and twenty of the constitution

indicates that the right is recognized,

encompasses the right to dignity, which is what

includes health, the right to

personal integrity, which is

achieved from the physical, psychological,

moral, and sexual aspects.

This article also says that it

contemplates the right to equality and to...

Non-discrimination, the right to make one's

own decisions, and I believe that

includes a woman's right

to decide whether or not she wants to be a mother. Of course, this

decision is influenced by factors such as whether the pregnancy

resulted from rape or if the fetus has

any deformities.

Thank you very much.

Lower your hand, Estefanía, and I'll stick with

Lorena Ruiz.

Good evening. Well, I am in favor of

abortion because a democratic society

cannot be defined as such if a woman is

not free to decide her

reproductive future and when she wants to be a mother.

One of the reasons I

am also in favor is that abortion is a

safe medical procedure that protects

lives. The mortality rate for

legal abortions is 0.7 deaths per

100,000 abortions. In contrast, there are one

or two deaths per 100,000

surgical procedures such as plastic surgery.

Another reason is that abortion

jeopardizes medical care for

those who do not seek abortions, for

women who have a

medical condition that

practically requires an abortion. So, if we put a

restriction on abortion, how could

they

undergo this procedure?

Thank you very much. The minute was very complete,

and Miss Beatriz Chicaiza,

good evening. With all my personal opinion...

Well I say that a woman has the

right to choose when she

wants to have a child. And also, one never

knows what situation she went through. If it was because of

rape or abandonment by her

partner, which is why the woman decides to have an

abortion, and there isn't a

completely safe contraceptive method for

this. Also, when having an abortion, it's a

responsibility that the woman

is deciding; it's all up to her. And

also, because a fetus before three

months of pregnancy cannot yet be

considered a person,

and they also resort to abortion; it's

also a personal decision,

since no one else can make it for her.

The woman herself has the

right to decide what she's doing. Okay, very well. Let's

see, I already

have six people, however, I

see that Estefanía Cabrera still has her

hand raised, and also, for some reason, it won't let me

lower it. Paola, Paola, Fernanda,

and good evening, everyone. Well, the

reason I might be in

favor of abortion would only be in the

case, for example, that the baby

had malformations, because

I believe that bringing a child into the world... A baby

who has a difficult life where they can't

develop or grow like

other children would be very

traumatic for both the baby and the

mother.

Okay, now we're going to do

the same thing. Those of you who are

against it, please give your argument as to

why you're against it. We're not going to

detect fallacies yet, just hear

the arguments of those who

are against it.

Raise your hand if you're against it, please.

And we're going to begin.

Okay, we'll start in this order: Luis,

Eduardo Llanes, Brunela, Jocelyn, Tania,

and Edison. Okay, then let's begin.

Eduardo, you have one minute to

become popular. We'll start in three, two,

one. You have talent 91.

Good evening. I'm against

abortion for many reasons. For example,

one of them might be that it's true that

a woman can decide about her own

life and her body. But if we're talking about

abortion, we're talking about

two lives, and for whatever reason, she couldn't

decide for this person. It's like

if a noisy neighbor bothers us so much that

we want to get

rid of them, so

obviously we're not going to do it.

Another reason is that it

affects women... 10% in sterility. When

an abortion is performed, whether

legal or not, and on the other hand, from a

religious perspective, in the eyes of God,

this is considered a crime.

Furthermore, we are

obstructing, not providing,

a right to life, which we all

deserve. We all want that.

Brunela, please, one minute. What's your name?

No, just kidding, let's start. Good evening

everyone. I'm Brunela Esparza, and I'm

against abortion because 75% of

women are forced to have abortions, whether

by their partners, for work, for

family reasons, and also because having a

clandestine abortion can

cause the mother's death.

The woman can also suffer

from depression and many other

mental illnesses.

Besides, no one has the right

to kill a person. There, we are

violating the first right, the

first article of the

Constitution, which is the right to

life. Therefore, a baby

has the right to well-being and

protection, and in the case of

rape, to have the baby and be able to

give it up for adoption.

Excellent, Brunela or Samantha. I don't know how to

tell you,

well, thank you very much,

Jocelyn, please, just

kidding, Brunela. Thank you very much, Jocelyn, we'll

start in

a minute, okay? Well,

good evening, everyone. My name

is Joselyn Chávez. Well,

today we are debating the legality

and illegality of abortion. In my case, I am in

favor of abortion not being legal.

Well, I have listened to my

classmates. We are not debating

health and what is affecting

women when

an illegal abortion is performed. We are

talking about the legal framework and what it

entails if a woman has an abortion in

Ecuador. In the penal code, in

article 452, I quote, "Those who knowingly and

voluntarily kill any

ascendant or descendant, spouse, or

sibling will be punished with

special major imprisonment of 16 to 25 years." So,

based on the legal framework, we could

argue that

we do not have the right to decide

about a descendant or ascendant,

as it says, that it is inside our

body. Yes, so another reason why

I am

against abortion would be that many of

the reasons why women say What

should be legal are

rapes, which is one of these things, which is

my body and I decide what happens to it. What happens with that

in the matter of rapes?

Thank you, thank you

very much. I

have to name it, I can't bring us

all back to the topic when we're dealing

with fallacies. Excuse me, in

debates, and I've had to be a moderator,

and many times to bring order to a

debate I have to point them out. That's why

I know the names of the fallacies, and I have to keep

interrupting and saying, "I

found fallacies, consequential fallacy,

dominance fallacy, etc." Or if I'm wrong,

then that's why I said, "Yes, this is

a correct answer." I greatly appreciate the

information. The legal basis is something I did

n't have, just like the person who

mentioned abortion, the first one, I don't

remember her name. All of

this is recorded, and to judge, I

have to watch the video again.

They mention a legal basis, which is

something I really don't just have, not only a legal basis

but a fact. Yes, the fact as a fact, and how can it

be that it's something I truly

appreciate, admire, and respect. Above

all, thank you

Jocelyn

Tania. Please,

you have a minute of popularity,

take advantage of it. Let's begin. 3, 2, 1. Good

evening. I am already against abortion

because I believe that women

cannot decide about their own

bodies. Because a woman would be

deciding not about her own body, but about the body of

a being that is not hers. That is, it is not

my life, it is another person's life,

even if it is temporarily inside me. It

is the life of a child, not something

that I cannot decide about the life of

another person. According to my mood,

on the other hand, I

agree. Thank you,

Edison.

How are you all? Good evening.

Well, for my part, I am

against abortion because when

an abortion occurs, a woman

can become

completely

infertile, you could say. And

furthermore, there are women who want to

have children again. Why would they want to have children

after what they

caused in terms of fertility or something?

And

the child can also be born with a

malformation. Likewise, after so much

treatment, why do they need treatment

for a person who had an abortion?

Do they need super extensive treatment?

So why are they doing an

abortion like that? That is my big question.

Okay, thank you very much. I agree.

Also, a question: is that called the Socratic method?

Melissa,

Melissa Elizabeth, please.

Good evening everyone. My name is

Melissa Esquina Luisa. I am against

abortion because it is

a process that encourages

young people to be less cautious

in their actions. If this is

legalized, it will make young people

less aware of everything they

do. And there is another way we

can avoid this:

if I don't want to have the baby, I can

give it up for adoption to a family that might

have the means

to care for it.

Excellent.

Thank you very much,

Melissa. And José Luis García.

Good evening, Professor. Good evening,

classmates. My name is José Luis García,

and I am against abortion because,

according to the Constitution, a child is considered a

living being from the beginning of

conception.

By accepting abortion, we

are going against the

Constitution, becoming

direct murderers.

Today, there are many methods

to protect ourselves, and some of these

methods are, let's say, 99%

effective in preventing

the growth of these children. And there

are also shelters today.

For children, not

for unwanted children, who can

have an equal chance at life, we must

respect the right to life.

Okay, teacher, thank you very much. Now we're going to

start with you, with the people

against, that is, the second group.

We'll have

one minute to point out the

fallacies you see, and

two minutes to point out the

fallacies you think

your classmates who spoke

first committed. Those of you in favor,

please raise your hands. Those of us who just spoke, right now.

And we begin,

then.

Okay,

Allison? So you're going first.

[Music]

Also, if you didn't detect any fallacies, just

tell me "I didn't detect any fallacy," or if you

did detect the name of the person who

committed this fallacy, then tell me. And the other

people, don't see it as a

direct attack, but as

feedback, and we all learn from

that. Yes, we begin. Allison, two minutes. Okay,

I detected the fallacy of ignorance. And well,

that fallacy of ignorance, and the one that's when you

're talking and you compare yourself to

another person, I don't know what it's called.

Can you help me with that one? Let's see... The first one is

the fallacy of ignorance, and the one of comparison, I wouldn't

see it as a fallacy, I'd have to see

the result to know which one it is. But

keep developing and there we'll tell you

[Music] okay.

Why do you think the one of comparison

could be a fallacy?

Because I was talking about

abortion and then I said, 'I

was talking about abortion and then I

said, it's like you, I mean, it's like you

compare, it's like you take and you say

something like this, I don't know how to explain it, but yes, yes,

that's called a

false relationship, if that's the case.

Okay,

Luis Eduardo, please.

Luis Eduardo Yáñez,

excellent.

Melissa Romero,

Melissa,

no, teacher, I didn't find any. Uh,

Jocelyn,

well, teacher, I found one, but I don't remember what it's

called. But well, it was the

moment when a classmate said that

a being, I mean, a living being, or well, a child, ca

n't be called a child until three

months, I think, or

three weeks. So, well, for me, that's

a fallacy because, as the

Constitution says, a human being is called a

human being from the moment of conception. So, we

can call a living being

from the moment it is... She conceived a living being as it is, so

for me it's a fallacy

because she didn't base her argument on the law,

on what the constitution says, or rather, on what

the

Constitution says, which states that a

human being is, as

I explained, a human being from the

moment of conception. So when

she said that

after three weeks it's not a

human being, she's committing a

similar fallacy. Another one I

heard was that when

she compared herself, or well, in this

case she used herself as an example—I do

n't remember which one—but she said, "It's my

body and my decision." So

in this case, we're not talking about someone;

one can't use oneself as an example in the debate,

but rather the

debate should be based on studies, on

what is being debated. Rather, it's

better not to get personally involved. If

anyone from the

Pro group

wants to refute what our colleague just

said,

the others shouldn't raise their hands, but

just speak up. Interrupt if

anyone in

favor wants to rebut; they have the right to

reply. Well, in this case, it would be a counter-

rebuttal, not

five seconds.

Okay,

Tania, please. Noemí Tania,

good evening. Well, I want to debate what they

mentioned about

abortion being necessary to prevent

births with illnesses or malformations.

Well, this principle is known as

eugenic abortion, which is based on the

false postulate that the beautiful and

healthy should establish the

value criteria for when a life is

worthwhile or not. With this criterion, we would

then have reasons to kill

disabled people who are already born.

Excellent, excellent! I love it when

I learn something new. I didn't know that.

Thank you,

Edison. Edison Joel,

excellent. Let's go then.

The pro people

who found fallacies or flaws

in reasoning, which is basically the

same thing,

in the people who gave their

argument against this activity,

raise your hands, please. Do you

remember Sandra? I remember

Beatriz. Paola,

neither? Raise your hand, even if it's just

to say I didn't find a

fallacy.

Well, I don't know if I'm right. Well, it

seemed to me to be a mistake, a

hasty generalization fallacy.

This person who mentioned that 75% of

women are forced to have clandestine abortions... I

mean, I don't have the source or the basis from

which they got the 75% information. If they are

clandestine, then I agree, totally

validated, because to give a percentage

we must cite where we got that

percentage. The INEC tells me it's 75%, I do

n't know, the Ministry of Youth... I don't know, I

'm not saying just anything, they tell me it's

28%, or the Ministry of

Public Health tells me it's 63%. So

if it's just the percentage,

then it's not really telling me anything. You have to

tell me the source to be able to

give value to this argument. This fallacy isn't very well

marked. Sandra congratulated

Estefanía Cabrera. Please

[Music] your

hand is used again

[Music]

Beatriz, until Estefanía fixes her

audio.

Well, professor, I kind of

see a balance there between the

opposing viewpoints, I mean, it's like both sides

are right [

Music]

Yes Very good

[Music]

Excellent

[Music] I

was looking among the fallacies, but it's

the appeal to pity. You mentioned to us that

the "Poor Little Thing" or a classmate who said that

we, for example, I mean all

people should live, even if they have

Down syndrome and all that,

adhered to that fallacy of feeling

sorry for someone. Yes, that's an appeal to pity, an emotional argument, a

sentimental

argument. Perfect. Now, to wrap things up, we're going

to open a

five-minute discussion, and with

this, we'll finish. You're going to

talk amongst yourselves

about whether or not

this activity should be legalized. Okay?

As you can see, I'm not going to give my opinion. I think

everyone knows it, but I'm not going to give

my opinion. I'm just an

observer here, and by the way, I congratulate you for

having identified fallacies. I love that you're

learning and that it's

helping you. It's not always

necessary to know the names, but it is important to

know how to identify them. Okay? So, let's

begin. Five minutes, please. The

microphone is yours. Tell me: Why can it be

legalized? Why should it be

legalized? And why not? And we'll

talk. Between us, let's be

respectful.

By the way, these five minutes are the

most

surgical part of the debate. So this is the

part that will carry the most weight in the

debate.

So, well, let's begin.

I wanted to talk to the person—I don't

remember the name of the colleague—who

mentioned that it's

a life that a woman carries inside her,

and what I wanted to ask her is

why she considers that living being

inside to have greater relevance,

greater importance, than the life of the

woman herself in medical situations, for

example, when the mother's life is in

danger. I

think that's against you. I am... Well, I... Well,

I was referring to this

topic because I was just reading a

study from the University of Cambridge, in which they

do the study, and in which

they say—well, as

they say—that when it's said that

every woman has the right to decide about

her own body,

common sense and modern science are not being taken into account,

which recognize that in a

pregnancy there are two lives and two bodies.

So, according to them, it says that a serum—

most say, given that sex is

determined

chromosomally at conception—and more

or less half of those that are

aborted are human beings.

Obviously, not every woman has the right to

control her own body. I

got this from a Cambridge University study, which

recognizes that

the majority of chromosomes that

determine pregnancy are

female. The majority, or rather, the vast

majority, are female. So, we

can say that not every woman has the

right to control her own body

because you're valuing your own right,

but not the right of the body

inside you.

[Music]

But the question was specifically about

a medical situation that is dangerous for

both people living, the child and the mother.

Why do you consider that

the child should have priority in preserving life?

Because in that case, abortion is not legal and would not

be applicable. Why would

the child be chosen over the mother?

That could also happen, and I wanted to

argue a little bit, professor, on

Sandra's point. Because what she says is true. Let's

suppose that some

women have

a favorable economic situation, while

others have an

unfavorable economic situation. What does this mean? That we

can currently have

women who have the

ease of access to a

doctor, who can

easily access medical care... To have children and not have

postpartum interventions, which is what

currently happens to most

women who look very well, is

due to excessive

work fatigue, the comfort and stress they

currently experience daily. So

that's the difference for

the woman who does have a favorable

economic situation, which

helps her considerably in that regard. So, if

each of my colleagues says, "Obviously, I would

argue that she doesn't have to, that she has to

have rights over that child," then

how would you argue at that

moment that you can also help

that person

without resorting to abortion, but she still

has the need to resort to

abortion because she doesn't have the means? So

my question, my point, is,

why do you think that a

woman does have the means? I mean, why do you think a

woman wouldn't have the

right to an abortion when she doesn't have a

favorable economic situation?

Guys, it's

like you guys, the problem is, you have

one minute, 56 seconds left. I did

n't hear you, colleague. Maybe you could

repeat the question for me. I don't know if it was for

me because I lost the signal and didn't

hear

the part. It was for everyone who is

against this issue. I was wondering

why... Don't you think they have the right

to an abortion when the

current situation isn't favorable?

What are you putting on,

professor? According to what they were

saying, why can

the life of the child be worth more than that

of the mother? From what I'm seeing

here, it says that in the

new Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code, there's a

chapter where it clearly mentions

violations of the right to freedom, which

maintains the criminalization of abortion in

articles 147, 148, and 149. But in article

150, and I'll comment, it establishes the grounds for

which the practice of a

legal abortion is authorized, with two exceptions:

in cases where the life and health of

the woman is at risk, and in cases

of rape of women with

mental disabilities.

This is stated in the

2014 Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code. Does

anyone want to argue anything further? Does

anyone want to answer Marco? Yes,

professor, and I think that answering the

classmate's question would be that he

means that the economic situation does

n't... I mean, that

economic situation doesn't justify taking the life of

a living being. No, because if that were the

case... The lower population would

n't exist, meaning

humble people, poor people, that's fine.

Excuse me for butting in, but I think I

understand your question, Marco. Are you

telling me why you're against

this practice for

people with low incomes?

Abortion is currently

decriminalized in cases of rape, but that doesn't

mean it's not a crime; it's a

crime, it's just decriminalized.

It's like saying that

bond paper doesn't have VAT; it does have VAT, but it's

taxed at

0%. Every product has VAT, so

any practice of taking

someone's life is a crime. It's simply

that in the case of

intrauterine pregnancy and rape, it

's decriminalized.

Now,

going to the Marxist-classist argument, that

is, the one about poor women,

when I hear this argument—and

again, excuse me for butting in—but

when I hear this argument, it's

like saying we're against someone

committing another crime, like

theft, because I'm going to be

against someone stealing if they're

poor.

Only the rich shouldn't steal, so

only the rich should have access to the

crime of abortion. So the

interesting thing here isn't that there are

fewer poor women who have

abortions or more

wealthy women who have abortions, but rather that it's not

a crime anymore.

There are other solutions for this, which, thankfully, have

n't been considered. But, for example, in

the case of rape, the first thing that should be

done—not because of the

pregnancy, believe me, the pregnancy is the

least of it—in the case of rape,

you have to go to a health center.

Other issues, such as

health, for example, a virus, a bacteria, a

fungus, whatever it may be, this is called

prophylaxis. Doctors give them a

test and, incidentally, recommend

using contraceptive pills

to avoid abortion.

Why? Because it will always be a

risk for the mother, whether she has limited

resources or high resources, to

undergo these types of procedures.

So, in the case of rape,

there is an alternative that is not

expensive: the morning-after pill or

three Microginon pills, three

pills for three

consecutive days, which is what

obstetricians, pediatricians, and gynecologists prescribe. It's

not pediatricians, sorry, gynecologists and

obstetricians, to prevent fertilization of the

egg. In that case, it wouldn't be an abortion.

Why? Because there would be no life because there would be no

fertilization. Now, there is something that we

have also overlooked for a

second, and that is that,

according to the Nobel Prize winner,

the father of the human chromosome,

Jerome Legend, he tells us, and well,

all of science has

told us... All the ministries tell us

that life begins at the moment of

fertilization. What is being discussed,

and what we have discussed, is from what

moment we consider it a person, which

is very different. But life as such

begins from the moment of

fertilization, and we don't just leave, and we shouldn't

confuse this with the fallacy that

the ovum already has life, the

sperm already has life. Yes, they have

life, but not human life. In fact, even

their cell division process is

different. The cells that divide

within the genitals are cells... well,

they divide by a process called

meiosis, while the fully

potent cell, which is an ovum

fertilized by the sperm, is a

totipotent cell and divides by

mitosis, which is a cell division of

64

chromosomes, while meiosis is

simply of 32 chromosomes. So what is being

discussed is when it is a person, but

that discussion is a

philosophical discussion, not a legal discussion, not a

political discussion, not a

discussion of resources. So that would

come Okay, my intervention.

Sorry for interrupting, let's move on to

the other group. Excuse me, but we're running out of

time. I knew we had covered

this point. Let's move on to the

next point, please.

One more time, until everyone is ready.

Pro-ideology, anti-

ideology,

raise your hands, please. Prohibitionism, you

know how we're going to do it. So,

raise your hands, Pro-

abortionists. I really

appreciate it. Pro-

abortionists, anti-abortionists, I would have liked to

have a much longer discussion. I'm

fascinated. I'm very, very

excited about this. Jocelyn, do

you have a boyfriend? No, just kidding. Okay, so

let's continue. We'll begin.

No, everyone's hands up.

We'll start with Roberto, Carla, Marco,

Giselle, Giovanni, and Nicole, in that order. We'll begin.

Roberto, Andrés, please help

us. You have one minute to be

popular. We'll begin.

[Music]

muted. Well, good evening. My name is

Roberto. Today I'm going to defend

gender ideology. Well, I'm going to start

with a historical date, which was

November 25, 1997, when

homosexuality was decriminalized in Ecuador. I

think I'm, how to say, in favor of

gender ideology because

Gender ideology is a

distorted and misused concept by

conservative groups, especially those closely associated with

the church. They believe that

because a book—whose author is unknown—

created human beings, not

mythological beings as some claim, it

states that there are men and women, and that all

people have equal rights.

I believe that

in Latin America, the

concept of gender ideology is generally

used by Third World groups

because there is more discrimination in

Third World countries than in other countries.

Roberto, Roberto, hold on there,

my friend. I mean, your

contribution was excellent, but you went over

time. Remember, we only have one minute. Let's try to focus on

a single

argument. Those who

disagree should remember to

note down the fallacies to identify them. I

really appreciate it; I would have liked to

continue listening because it was very

interesting. I'm telling you this without sarcasm. Carla,

Carla Alejandra, please.

[Music]

Professor, good evening everyone. I'm Carla

Moreno. Give me a minute. Give me a minute,

Carla. Someone is

just telling me that my hand went off by

mistake. I'm against it, okay?

Thanks, Carlita. Sorry, and

let's continue. Do

n't worry, I support

gender ideology. Because we know that it exists according to

the physical, the biological, that we know

are male and female, but this biological

has nothing to do with the psychological

because this depends on the feeling and

the will that one wants to follow. Many

people since ancient times have been

homosexual,

bisexual, transsexual, according to their own tastes,

not because they have necessarily been with

other people of the same sex

and it simply brought them that way. No, the

person simply relates from

youth, in adolescence,

and nowadays, well, they see who they like.

This is not something that says, "Oh no, it happens

to everyone." No,

this is not an illness either, and well,

people decide if I want to be

heterosexual, I stay heterosexual, I'm not

interested in my own sex, my own sex,

so I simply stay heterosexual.

But if I am interested in my own sex,

then I go homosexual. But that doesn't mean

people have to treat me

differently or like that. It doesn't make me a lesser person, it doesn't make

me think

differently, it doesn't make them think that

my brain is smaller than theirs. That of a

heterosexual person. Then I

should see them. I

have to lock this up. Lock this up,

I mean reset it to zero. No,

Giselle.

Good evening everyone. I am in

favor because I believe that everyone has

their right and responsibility to the

gender they want to be. If they want to

be a man or a woman,

each person decides what they

want to be. Perfect, it's quick and concise. Giovanni, please. Good evening. Gender identity. I am not in favor of this. The Constitution of the Republic, in its Article eleven, indicates in numeral two that all people are equal and enjoy the same rights, duties, and opportunities. No one may be

discriminated against for reasons of ethnicity,

place of birth, age, sex, gender

ideology, cultural identity,

marital status, language, religion, ideology and

political affiliation, criminal record,

socioeconomic conditions, and some

other versions of what

this law indicates. To elaborate on this, in

the 2013 UN Agenda, goal

five says: "Achieve

gender equality and empower all women

and girls." Gender equality is not

only a fundamental human right

but is one of the

essential foundations for building a

peaceful, prosperous, and sustainable world.

Gender identity is the concept one

has of oneself as a

sexual being and the feelings that this

entails. It relates to how we live and

feel our bodies from a

personal perspective and how we express this in the

public sphere, that is, with other

people. Thank you very much, Denis,

Sofía, Yasmín.

According to an article I read, it was presented

negatively and disparagingly, attempting to

cancel or dismiss the

sexual and gender diversity that

society, cultures, and

dimensions have been embracing. Well, depending on

my way of thinking, I am in favor of

this issue, since we are all free to

think and do what we want. We

have no right to discriminate against

other people and the lifestyle they

choose to lead or the gender they

wish to be. I

agree. Thank you, Sofía Marco.

[Music]

I agree, firstly, because I have

several points that can

raise awareness about what it means for people.

I directly agree with the

issue of gender because it greatly improves the

work environment. As you can see,

men and

women now have the same roles

within a company,

which directly helps us. To have

better profitability for what

the function of that same company means,

I also agree because we

also have the issue that

currently if we share

directly with women, we

also have rights directly in

the home, which also leaves us

no longer with an excuse to be depressed or to

use

alcohol or tobacco. It

helps us a lot in that area as well.

We would also cover the issue of

our children. Our children also have

the same function,

directly related to the role of father and mother.

What does it mean that if we have a stable couple in the

home,

our children will be happy. This

will allow us to have the right for

our children to have better

profitability directly with us.

Thank you very much.

Next is Joel Arturo.

We begin this discussion from the point of

view of freedom.

Everyone has the right to feel

how they want, to want what they want, to

express it in the way they want. Just

because a person is

homosexual, trans, etc., we are not

going to treat them with the same

opportunities or conditions, or because of the

way they are treated. Another point is that,

thank God,

people...

[Music]

People who feel

inhibited or who commit suicide out of fear

of not expressing themselves or feeling

how they want to feel in society.

An epidemiological study in

the Pan American Journal of Public Health shows

that suicides occur among

young people between the ages of ten and nineteen, and we know that at that age,

people are just beginning to understand their

gender, their way of feeling, or

how to start. Thank you, Joel, and

don't tell me, and Darío Gabriel,

Darío Gabriel,

well, I am in favor because as

human beings we have rights and free

thought, and thanks to that,

July 28th is commemorated as International

Gay Pride Day, since they were categorized

as criminals and degenerates.

Therefore, I am in favor and an ally because I

am committed to equality and I

denounce the inequality of rights.

Excellent, Darío. Thank you very much. Now

let's go with the argument of the people

against. Please raise your hand so I

can guide you. Those who

are against, raise your hand. And

we begin,

Juan Pablo, we begin with you. The rest,

please. And

those who are in favor, remember

Let's start noting down or discovering what

the fallacies would be. We'll begin, Juan Pablo, just

a minute.

Good evening everyone. To

start quickly, I'm going to begin with the

premise of gender ideology, which is that

one is not born a woman and becomes one.

This Simón, in his book,

tells us that womanhood is just a

cultural construct, and that's

wrong because, well,

Simón forgot to check

biology, which tells us that

in the process of syngamy, from

the process of fertilization,

a totipotent cell is created with 46

chromosomes, which tells us that XX

for males and females, and X for

males. What is the difference between

X and Y? That X has 800 to 900 genes

and carries 60 to 70. So, I believe

that gender ideology is an

anti-scientific idea since it is not based on

what is demonstrable; it is only a mere

ideological intuition. To finish

my quote, I want to quote the Argentine political scientist

Agustín Laje, who He defines

gender ideology as a set of

anti-scientific ideas that, with

authoritarian political purposes,

uproot our sexuality from its

nature to explain it merely by

culture. To clarify, I am in favor

of equality before the law. What does this mean is that

every human being, regardless

of their gender, preferences, or anything else, has

the same rights and is governed by the

same rules? What gender ideology wants

is benefits for the few. Juan

Pablo, thank you very much, excellent

intervention, Nicole. Now,

Nicole, we're starting with three

against gender ideology

because, as

my colleague mentioned earlier, we are

born biologically with a sex, although it

's not a gender, but it is a

tendency that we are marked with from

birth. In addition to this, it is

important to consider that when

there is a gender ideology, it is

also talking about the education of children and

giving them the freedom to choose at

any moment in their lives. And we must

take into account that it is only from the age of twelve that

a child begins to be able to

identify and make their own decisions.

Therefore, it is important to have guidance

and not just leave it to

free will, so it is

important to provide guidance. And I

personally think that if

man was created and there is woman, it's to

maintain a balance in our

society. And that allows us to have a

more peaceful coexistence and, in a

way, to have specific roles. I think

that both a man and a woman can

perform in various areas, and we have

every capacity to do so. However,

naturally, a man cannot even get

pregnant. It's thanks to everything

we as women have.

Thank you very much, Carlos. Please,

Carlos Salvador. Yes, of course. Well,

good evening, everyone. Before I

begin my presentation, I want to quote a

paragraph about ideology:

that ideology is a form of

social consciousness. It contains a

set of specific concepts, ideas,

notions, and representations that

seek to

transform an existing political, social,

economic, and cultural system. In this

case, gender ideology is something that,

in one way or another, subtly and

often abusively, seeks to impose itself. The

ideology wants to impose, to incite,

and, respecting the rights of others,

with bad faith, to harm the being of a

person who is often innocent, who

was born naturally heterosexual.

Thank you very much,

Mariuxi Isabel.

[Music]

Yes, teacher, let's go. Well,

mainly what I would like to

discuss is against

gender ideology. These are sexual and reproductive rights.

We have to keep in mind that this

ideological current,

among its new rights,

is enshrining them in addition to

previous UN declarations. For

example, it enshrines the right to

safe abortion, sterilization, and

any other method of contraception,

including potentially abortifacient ones

like the morning-after pill;

state-provided sex education for adolescents;

sexual and reproductive health care for

young people without

parental consent; and the fight

against AIDS based

solely on condom use.

Thank you very much, Mario.

Your point is quite interesting; it's something I

hadn't considered.

Jeremy Josué, we've already moved on,

but I'm against it

because, firstly, it's not natural, since to

exist, you need a man and a

woman, opposite genders. And in the case of

marriage, even though the law

protects them and it's legalized,

gay marriage is not the same as

heterosexual marriage, since heterosexuals can have

children and gay people cannot. In the case

of adoption, the consequences are that the child

has a different example and

adopts the mental patterns of their parents.

Furthermore, they respect a

person's right, since they ask to be treated

as gay, but I am Who decides how to

treat them?

Basically, you don't mess with my kids.

Okay, guys,

Mariuxi, you raised your hand. Now we'll start the

same way. You realize it's the other way around, just like we did

with the

abortion issue. You have a minute to

tell me the fallacies of the opposing side. I

mean, of the people who are in favor. Let's raise our

hands, and if you didn't detect any,

then tell me that you didn't detect any. I'm talking about

fallacies. Let's start.

[Music]

Of those I've seen, Juan Pablo, Niki,

start.

I identified one, which

is... I don't

remember the name,

but it's like a personal way of

taking it, and it's something more sentimental. When a

classmate

mentioned that one is free to choose,

that one is free to decide, and while it's

true we are free to decide,

however, if everyone could

decide, we would have a chaotic world.

If there weren't norms and rules that

allow us to have limits, we

could do anything. So

that's excellent, Nicole. That's a fallacy of

sentimental arguments. Mariuxi:

Yes, teacher. Well, I detected three. I hope I'm not

wrong. One of the false ones... Relationship.

Because a classmate said that they

distinguish themselves or develop an

ideology as they relate to

other

people throughout their lives. There's

also a

sentimental argument because they say it also

focuses a lot on moods, whether they're

depressed or whether their

children grow up happy

in a home and all that. And also the

ignorant ignorance

that a classmate said

that from around sixteen or

nineteen years old they begin to have

a way of feeling in

agreement.

Juan Pablo, please.

Yes, professor, the same as my

classmates. Appealing to the

sentimental argument. None of

those who supported gender ideology

gave a scientific basis. So if they don't

have a scientific basis, we're supporting

mere ideas, we're not supporting

nature. While we have a

cultural construction that

depends on where we're raised, there are

things like genetics that we can't

change. And another thing:

gender ideology is biased

here, firstly politically. Because, for

example, let me tell you the case of the lawyer

Jessica Yani, a trans

activist lawyer who... She sued a gynecologist

because he refused to treat her.

The gynecologist saw that she still had

male reproductive organs, even though she looked like a

woman. She

sued him because she

felt discriminated against. And look, these

political ideologies that are so ingrained

in our society are what

lead to these absurd cases. So, I'm

going to find out. Thanks, Juan

P. Pablo Jeremy

Josué, I didn't

find any. Okay, let's move on to the

next one. Those who are in

favor, please begin. Carlos: Ah,

well,

Perla, what fallacy did you detect, dear

Carlita?

Excuse the familiarity. No,

Roberto Cruz:

Well, professor, I found three fallacies. The

first one comes from the same classmate

who stated that she was in favor of gender

ideology because we are

using a fallacy of

hasty generation. When we talk about

gender ideology, we are not talking about a

sexual orientation. Because no

one is going to say, "I want them to

put on my ID that I am gay, that I am

pansexual, that I am bisexual," when the

identity of gender ideology seeks to raise

awareness of whether a

trans man can be recognized as such. Now,

the second one—this was from our classmate

Mariuxi—is that we are taking topics that

have nothing to do with

gender ideology when talking about abortion and AIDS

because abortion, as everyone knows,

is a controversial topic, and

AIDS doesn't necessarily have to do with

the LGBT community or

transgender people because we can

contract AIDS simply by getting a

tattoo or We go to get injected with some

medication, the needle is not

sterilized, or it is already

used, and I'm also in

a contradictory situation where they said that

children shouldn't be generalized, or how to say in

this case, indoctrinated, because

many times there have been cases, already

studies, that many children are neutral;

boys like to play with

dolls as much as girls like to play

with a ball as much as boys like to play

with a ball, so we can't

indoctrinate them equally, saying that just because they are

boys they have to like this or that, just as it is often the case

that parents

indoctrinate their children that they have to

like soccer, and if you don't like

soccer, well, there's something wrong there. And in the same

way, to the colleague who said that

gender ideology is not based on a

scientific branch, well, yes, it is,

because it is studied by psychology,

and psychology studies

human behavior, and by saying that it is not

based on one, he is saying that all

the psychologists who at some point

helped these people and published

several articles in favor of

gender ideology or respect for people

Trans people have no basis when

even some scientists and

famous figures have managed to defend this

ideology, not oppose it because of a

book, as I say, which is also because of

many third-world or

conservative groups that,

as we say vulgarly, are demented

squares.

Excellent, Roberto. Now I'll give you more

time, Marco.

Well, professor,

I think that on the topic of fallacies, the only thing we

could

salvage, and what my classmate in

this case Roberto said, is that I totally

agree with the topic of sex. It's

true, that is, the ideology.

I have the name of a

person who, in this case, is a

renowned psychologist

named Stephen Rosental, a

clinical psychologist specializing in

pediatrics. He indicated that

we always see a

characteristic between men and women, that

is, in this case, the name is based on

their respective genitals,

which are the

penis in men and the vagina in women. So that

directly determines our

gender identity. Unfortunately, that

is our current ideology, that is,

beyond what we think with

each point.

You remember, right? Excellent.

I like it, I like it,

Gisela, Gisela,

excellent, Isabel, Mariuxi, Isabel

[Music]

Yes, teacher. I wanted to correct

my classmate on the topic. He says that in my

argument, I said that only

people who have this

gender ideology get infected. Well, I do

n't clarify that the fight against

diseases like AIDS is based solely on

condoms.

A person can be heterosexual,

homosexual, bisexual, whatever.

We are all exposed to contracting these types

of diseases. Not necessarily

people from the LGBT community.

Additionally,

in my argument, I also said that they

violate a series of rights

enshrined in other

UN declarations, such as the right to a safe abortion.

This is enshrining more rights; it's not that

they are, I don't

know, only they have access to the right

to a safe abortion, or are they the

only ones who demand that this be legal?

Excellent, let's go,

Denis Giovanni.

Yes, to add something, just to

reinforce the topic,

the situation of gender identity

says that it is a term that emerged in the

United States in the

mid-20th century in the

medical and psychiatric fields in 1995 and within the

framework of work with Hermaphrodites. That's where

this term,

now known as intersexuality, comes from.

What does this mean? It refers to

variations in the organs and

sexual characteristics, both

anatomically and genetically. I find it

super interesting how they're

naming it and how, in one way or another,

I believe it has distorted the

issue of gender identity because it's

based on a

scientific principle studied by psychiatrists, in

this case, on the topic of

hermaphrodites, which refers to people

who have both sexes in the same person or

different sexes, and who, it could be said,

are useful or can reproduce

very well.

Juan Pablo,

professor, before we begin, Sofía says her

internet connection has dropped, and she asks if she

can excuse it. She doesn't know how to

access Sofía Pérez now. She wanted to

defend

what my classmate told me. I'd like her to

present

the research study where

gender ideology passes the

scientific method, which, interestingly, we just

studied in the subject of

research methodology. Another point she made was that

none of us who

defend or oppose

the ideology... Gender ideology got mixed up with

religion. So it's

an argument that doesn't carry

weight in this debate. Besides, if

psychologists are so helpful, why is it that in

Nordic countries, where

gender ideology is more pronounced, helping

someone find their sexuality—

let's say, helping them become

homosexual rather than psychologically helping them

return to

heterosexual tastes—is penalized? That's my

question for my classmate

[Music].

My classmate wants to answer:

Well, professor, in this case, I

couldn't have them on hand because I'm

only defending from a

personal point of view. Obviously, I did some

prior research on everything

related to

gender identity

in the context of the Church. The

Church is always a controversial topic, but

as we've seen, there

was the famous "Don't Mess With My Children" campaign,

which was

promoted by the Episcopal Conference.

There we can see a

big indication of what kind of groups

are being conservative. We ca

n't say that the Church

is conservative when, within the

Church itself, one has to maintain order. We can't say

that the Church is conservative. It can be conservative

when the greatest crimes

committed against children are perpetrated by

churches.

In this case, regarding scientific studies, I would

like to investigate in order to

refute the argument that my colleague

is making, and especially the issue of

homosexuality that my colleague

mentioned. We are not talking about

homosexuality in relation to one of the

genders that people

feel, or how they identify.

We are talking about the

gender identity of a trans person. A

trans person can be a man and

wants to be and feels like a woman. We are not

saying that a trans person is going to

be gay, bisexual, pansexual, or

asexual. In this case, we are

confusing orientation

with identity.

Similarly, regarding the colleague who spoke

about the issue of abortion and AIDS,

here at the

Equivida Foundation, I believe there is

a study that was conducted here showing that the

majority of trans women who are

registered as trans or trans men

who are registered as trans

within the Metropolitan District have

suffered rape and have not been able to

access legal and safe abortion. We are

saying that there is a... To say there is

parity between women who wish to have

abortions, in these circumstances, and

trans men, being the latter, is

discriminated against. Even in

private medical centers, as in the study at

the foundation, it says, "Likewise, if you

like, the foundation is located at 6

de Diciembre and Manuela Canizar,

precisely in the area of ​​Plaza

Ford where you can carry out all these

types of consultations." Thank you.

Anything else?

Yes, professor, to finish, a

small thing, as I want to give a small ending, you see, well, again,

the colleague entered

the religious sphere, and it is

something that those of us who

are against gender ideology have not discussed,

and in the area of ​​what he said,

psychologically, the basis is the same: to help

a person find themselves, to find

their tastes, to find how they feel

most comfortable, and that's it. Now, we

live in the West, there is equality before

the law where all people have the

same rights and we have the same

rules. Why change that? Why

change this equality before the law? What is it that

everyone is looking for? Now, as a question

for all my colleagues

who are listening, in

machismo, men had privileges

over women, right? Now, what

these groups are looking for... And these pro-

gender ideology groups are seeking rights over the

majority. They are small groups

seeking rights over the majority.

Why give them a privilege if what we

seek is equality? Thank you very much. Does

anyone want to respond? Nicole, you

have your hand raised. Yes, it

was also to respond to the

issue of children and also to the

issue of what our

colleague from the foundation mentioned. No one can

deny that there is inequality, or

perhaps discrimination in some way,

but the issue we are

addressing is gender ideology itself.

So, there would also come a

sentimental issue: "Poor things." Perhaps

because they have other preferences and that's why they

experience some discrimination. It

has nothing to do with the issue we

are addressing at this moment, which is

gender ideology itself. And

also, regarding children, as I

mentioned, there are several studies that

support the idea that a child is not even

fully formed, but only from the age of

two does he

begin to make decisions. And as I

mentioned again,

gender ideology itself implies that

any

human being who believes himself to be—we're not only talking

about man or woman, nor is it that he believes himself to

be a cat—can make free decisions. Yes. It's that

any situation that a person believes is

correct is created, and something I

personally think about is the issue of

established norms and rules. If

we continue in this process of

such free rights, you could say, and there

are no regulations and no path forward,

we're talking about the possibility that in the future,

things could be stronger and even worse.

It's

perfect that once we're empowered, we can

make a decision. However, we're

also talking about children who are

n't yet

mentally developed enough to make a

decision, and gender ideology would

support that, which I don't agree with. I

owe it to you,

and Marco, you have your hand raised,

already arguing a bit about the topic I

was talking about. In this case, regarding the

approach we're taking,

we want to make it clear,

first of all, that we're not saying it's

a pathology, it's a matter of

sexuality, or that we're directly indicating that it's

discrimination

against gay people.

Obviously, they are people who are

completely equal to everyone else. We have to keep in

mind that we're in

favor, just as we're in favor, because they can

also have the same things we

currently do. Doing everything

we do, I mean, it's not like we

're saying we're going to discriminate against them

because they're these people, no, excuse me, we're men

and women. Right now, what we're

doing is achieving

gender equality, so let's say we're in

favor of this issue. That's what I

can indicate,

okay? Let's wrap up the topic

because it's already 9:03. Thank you very much,

Carlos. I think you want to say something,

Carlos Salvador or Darío Gabriel? Yes, Professor

Carlos Salvador, tell me.

Well, specifically about the topic, all

my classmates talked about how we all

have rights, we all have the right for

people to decide and all that, but if

you're realistic and you realize

all that they do or want to

impose, these kinds of mobilizations they

do, they're not interested in children, they're not

interested in people who don't

have their orientation fully defined,

they can't, no, no, they can't realize

the tremendous damage they're doing to

society, they're not interested in any of

that. If only... I mean, I don't want to get

sentimental, but to be realistic about what's happening

with young people today, and even more so

in this stage we had with COVID, when

everyone was locked up, and that's

when... They notably abused

the youth of the child who is not

fully formed in his being, who was born

heterosexual and is now being

confused. This is something very harmful that

is happening in society, and

most people don't realize it. They

only see people who are already who they are, who

have already decided what they want to

be. And

where do we leave the children? Rights

talk about rights, but rights

end where the rights of

parents begin. We want to raise good

children, parents who want them to be able to

decide when they have the capacity

to do so, without interfering when they are

innocent creatures. They say, "Oh, poor thing,

you have to be a boy."

Yes, but it can also be a girl. Do

you think about how

an innocent mind will react? That's all I

want to say.

Thank you very much,

Roberto. You are

Carlos. Excuse me, Carlos Salvador,

not very well argued. Thank you, Darío

Gabriel. And we'll finish with this now,

professor. To add something quickly

to the classmate who was talking about

chromosomes:

Not necessarily XX female, XY male. What

happens is that

scientifically

we see [citation

to the PDH]. Marcela Fernández from the

University of Massachusetts and an

article from UTLA also mention that during

development there is a hormonal alteration, so

when they grow up and

reach puberty, many

people tend towards the

opposite gender. So, since I'm in favor, I also

think that many of us

have, I don't know, some friend or acquaintance who

are good people, and we're not

going to reject them because of their inclination. And

regarding the topic of

religion that you were

also talking about, it's not necessary for

people with this inclination to have

some religion when they want to get married, because

this is also civilized; they get

married civilly, religion isn't involved.

Excellent. Thank you very much, young people from

both groups.

Let me close,

and allow me, just like in the

previous group, to add fuel to the fire a little. Let's

see, we all have rights, we all

have freedoms, and one of these

rights is no discrimination.

Okay, there are people who like

men, there are people who like

women, people who like to dress as

men, people who like to dress as

women, and there's nothing wrong with that because

clothing is a

culturally

established matter. That is to say, it can very well be done

for The Reformation, for example, the

Scots wear kilts and there's

absolutely nothing wrong with that because it's

their culture. Isn't that true? And we all

have rights, but we all have

rights for one reason, and I think I've

spoken to you about this: because we are

human beings. We

all have rights as human beings,

not because we are men, not because we are women, not because we are

children. Well, rather, because we

are children we have separate rights, but not

because we are homosexual, not because of our

tastes or preferences. I don't

like beets, and because I don't

like beets, I'm not going to need a

whole external engineering study to validate

my tastes. No beet-hating, okay? I'm a

beet-phobic. Now, why the irony? I'm being

ironic this way because nobody

has the right to interfere in anyone else's private life.

What Juan Pablo does, what

Nicole does, what Beatriz does, what

Marco, Paola, Ivette, Luis, and Eduardo do are the ones who

appear on screen. What

you do under your sheets is

nobody's business,

okay? Not the church's, not the culture's,

not even society's,

agreed? But when they start

taking away my freedom... For example,

I might agree or disagree

with a point, but if it takes away a

certain freedom, then yes, that would

represent a problem for me. Imagine

someone goes out dressed as a woman, and I

could criticize them because I have the freedom to do so. That's

not true, because...

And that wouldn't be a

hate crime. We can all criticize. I

like women, and if a

woman goes out dressed the same or poorly,

say, the president's wife, well,

she's also subject to criticism, and that does

n't make us homophobic. That doesn't make us

bad people for

society. However, any kind of

decision that one wants to make,

these kinds of decisions have to

be supported by the respect we owe each other

as a society and with the respect we owe each other as

human beings, as

thinking people, and as you,

my professional colleagues. Okay,

without further ado, I'll say goodbye. I send you a hug. I

congratulate you;

everyone's participation was excellent. I'm leaving quite happy,

quite fulfilled. I know it's going to

sound very... I love it,

knowledge catches my attention. That's why

when I hear... So, when they

come to me with, for example, Juan Pablo, I don't

want to say that I'm... Yes, but I

love this. I mean, I really like that they

demonstrate knowledge, the

research itself, that we don't use TV to

kill our brains, but rather to

build them up. We see what we

investigate, and it was clear that this course is all about

that. Carlos, Carlos Salvador,

Nicole, Juan Pablo,

Jocelyn, and I'm forgetting some, but it's because I

see them with their cameras on right now.

Denis, Denis, Denis, Giovanni, Marco too,

of course, Roberto, Roberto, Andrés,

a huge congratulations from me,

well, not from me, from my side. And to

those I'm

forgetting, don't think I haven't

included you or that you've been left out, it's just that I ca

n't see you because your

cameras aren't on. I'm just

sending you all a big hug. See you tomorrow. Don't

forget to like and subscribe, and I'll

see you next Tuesday.

Have a great night, and do

n't let the mosquitoes bother you. Goodbye.

[Music]