Channel
@debatecf
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
1,854subscribers
+7 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.
| Telegram ID | -1002708333782 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @debatecf |
| Created | Between 1 June 2025 and 30 September 2025— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 10 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 10 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/debatecf |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 10 Aug 2026, 13:03 | 1,854 | +7 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 20:47 | 1,847 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 17:41 | 1,847 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 19 July 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate. It is computed over the 17 of 20 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 29 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 20 (19 July 2026 – 29 July 2026) |
| Views total | 4,124 |
| Reactions total | 87 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 7 Aug 2026, 20:47 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
87 reactions across 16 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 62.1% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 54 | 62.1% | |
| 👍 | 18 | 20.7% | |
| 🤝 | 13 | 14.9% | |
| 👎 | 2 | 2.30% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 17 of the 20 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 87reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 19 July 2026 to 29 July 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
.✦ ───── ✩ ───── ✦. Классический вопрос Идеализм, дуализм , материализм (Ну и остольные позиции) Как вы считаете какая их них верна, не верна и почему? P.S. я лично стою на материализме, так как уверен что критерий истины практикам материализм же даёт лучший практический результат -` #тейк@debatecf ´- ══════════════════ ⋆.˚✮ @debatetakesbot ✮˚.⋆
🤝3👎1
Signed df
.✦ ───── ✩ ───── ✦. Считаете ли вы селфшиппинг настоящей формой любви? И если да, то действительно ли эта практика приносит человеку пользу, а не вред? Мне интересно услышать аргументы обеих сторон, потому что лично у меня есть серьёзные сомнения. Как ни крути, взаимодействие с вымышленным персонажем в реальности невозможно. В большинстве случаев контакт ограничивается собственным воображением, фанатским творчество…
❤3
Signed DNI/REST!¿‽🍓🦴🍊Лютик Ж.М.К(11+) РЫГОТНИК🍊🦴🍓‽¿!
Комментировать тейк можно тут или в первом посте
Signed pasta way
˚✮ @debatetakesbot ✮˚.⋆
Signed df
«теория асинхронного развития плода является гипотезой, а не доказанным фактом - и она существует уже несколько десятилетий, но так и не получила надёжного подтверждения, потому что невозможно провести контролируемое исследование на людях, а все данные корреляции и предположения. в научной литературе эта теория обсуждается, но не является консенсусной, и даже её сторонники признают, что механизмы «асинхронности» неиз…
❤5👍1
Signed df
https://www.ese-hormones.org/media/ei0psrhz/transgender-brains-are-more-like-their-desired-gender-from-an-early-age.pdf Авторы сами признают, что это гипотеза, и не учитывают множество факторов, сам документ – пресс-релиз конференции, а не рецензируемая статья https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/69d0c306d1922e37d52aff3c/original/exploring-biological-factors-in-gender-identity-for…
❤3👍1
Signed df
Мой друг(тт: ex.cordisss) в качестве аргумента выдвигает –https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1363460719876835 «дополнительный удар по мифу о врождённости наносит исследование forgotten lives (2019) – оно показало, что пожилые транс-люди с деменцией могут забывать о своём переходе и вновь идентифицировать себя с полом, приписанным при рождении, или испытывать гендерную спутанность; если бы гендерная идентичность…
❤3👍1
Signed df
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7471065/ Даже если есть генетическая ассоциация, это предрасположенность, а не детерминация. Многие люди с этими вариантами не становятся трансгендерами, для т они не специфичны https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3402034/ p = 0.04 – пограничная значимость, при таком количестве сравнений вероятность ложноположительного результата высока. И да, от авторов: «Мы не смогли во…
❤3👍1
Signed df
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/ "Большинство выводов согласуются с предрасполагающим, а не детерминирующим влиянием гормонов или генов.» " Доказательств генетического влияния на транссексуальность очень мало. Имеется несколько сообщений об исследованиях транссексуалов в семьях и среди близнецов, но ни одно из них не дает четкой информации в пользу участия генетических факторов.» https://pmc.ncbi.nlm…
❤3👍1
Signed df
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-016-0768-5 "Все посмертные исследования были проведены на МТФ, получавших половые гормоны, и нельзя сбрасывать со счетов возможные последствия гормонального лечения. [...] Возможно, что морфологические изменения, интерпретируемые как “женские” в этих ядрах, могут отражать только негативные эффекты высоких доз эстрадиола и антиандрогенов, которые хронически получают МТФ…
❤1👍1
Signed df
Тезис «У животных и людей за половое поведение и гендерную идентификацию (у людей) отвечают те же области мозга - гипоталамус в сочетании с миндалевидным телом и корой» «"Самцы" с феминизированным мозгом не демонстрируют полового поведения, характерного для самцов - они не устраивают садок, не бегают за самками, не издают брачных звуков, не дерутся с самцами, а вместо этого демонстрируют типично женское поведение (на…
❤4👍1
Signed df
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10566981/ Про крыс, у которых из-за стресса менялись размеры ядер в мозге, и они меньше хотели спариваться; это просто стрессированные животные с нарушенным рефлекторным поведением. И крысы не объясняют смену местоимений и паспорта Если грызун с феминизированным мозгом ведет себя как самка - это гормональный сбой, а не «транс-мышь», и это даже не является ГНК-фактором, потому что катег…
❤3👍1
Signed df
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @debatecf. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Citation-graph rank — 685,819 of 1,169,250entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Named by 4 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 10 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“debate confession!” (@debatecf), 1,854 subscribers as measured 10 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/debatecf.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.