The Instigator
Kozu
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
LaughItUpLydia
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Females are better people than males.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Kozu
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,607 times Debate No: 72558
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (174)
Votes (5)

 

Kozu

Pro

If there were to be only one gender on earth, which gender would be able to live together more peacefully?

If one were to look at the nature of females overall, and how they interact with the rest of their community, I believe most would agree females are much better than males in this aspect. They're often more less-aggressive, more empathetic, and able to better cope with reality.

This debate will essentially be about who is better at living in a community of others, males or females.

==Definitions==

Community: A group of people living in the same place

Female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.

Male: Of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

Better: Comparative of good.

==Rules==

1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling or semantics6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions
6. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a Loss

==Structure==
R1. Acceptance
R2. Pro's and Con's case. No rebuttals
R3. Rebuttals
R4. Rebuttals and conclusion. No new arguments.
LaughItUpLydia

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Kozu

Pro

Thank you Lydia for accepting. I look forward to a stimulating debate.

Before anything can be said about which gender, are a better people than another. We must first understand what it means to be “better people”. People throughout life who have exhibited behaviors such as aggression, apathy, depression, and dishonesty tend to more often than not lead to a detriment to society. Behaviors like these are the primary cause of problems between people and their relationships. Many would find themselves hard pressed to find a case where a conflict didn’t arise from at least one of these behaviors. People generally strive for happy, honest, and empathetic relationships to build their lives around. Since these more often than not lead to a better relationship and ultimately a better community, it would seem logical that we should gauge people’s personhoods by how they behave and how they interact with their community. Since a better community is our ultimate goal, we should label those who behave best as the “better people”.

-Aggression is Humanities downfall-

To start this contention off, I will begin by quoting Stephen Hawking,

The human failing I would most like to correct is aggression. It may have had survival advantage in caveman days, to get more food, territory or a partner with whom to reproduce, but now it threatens to destroy us all”[6].

I challenge my opponent to show aggression itself serves a beneficial purpose. Mankind does not need this behavior any longer. It should be understood that assertiveness, competitiveness and ambition are not hostile in nature, unlike aggression is.

When fighters are in a boxing match, they do not act out of aggression, they are calm and collected fighting machines with a strong respect for their opponent [1]. Fighting itself is not aggression, however, it is undeniable that many fights are instigated through aggression. These meaningless fights could simply be avoided if aggression were not a part of the equation.

Unfortunately we cannot do away with this aggression as of yet. As a result, nearly 53% of crimes committed are classified as “violent crime”[3].

-Incarceration Rates-

Perhaps one of the strongest pieces of evidence that I will present is the staggering difference between genders and their incarceration rates. According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, approximately 8.8% of females make up the prison population [2]. When we look at the total number of prisoners in the United States, there comes out to be around 2,266,800 [3]. This means that only 200,000 females are currently in prison. Among death row inmates, we see this figure plummet even further down to about 2% [4].

These are no modest numbers. This shows a direct correlation between the rates at which each gender commits a crime. The best explaination for this happening is that females generally do not posses the same level of bad behavior males tend to have. I would find few people who would argue the contrary to be true.

-Empathy-

This is where females begin to shine in comparison to males.

Females, by their very nature possess more empathy than males [5]. Empathy is the key to living together in peace. Empathy is defined as “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.” If one truly shares feelings and understands another, there would be no reason for hostilities to occur. There may be disagreements, but that is a far cry for being hostile to one another. Much like within families, sometimes we almost “hate” each-other, but if one were to be asked if that family member deserved to die or be harmed over their disagreement, they would most likely say no. Empathy itself may as well be equated to love.

If everybody on this planet could somehow empathize with one another, I would wager that crime rates would drop across the board, especially those involved in violent crime.

-Suicide-

An important part of living in any community is the ability to cope with one’s own reality. Even if all our bad behaviors were removed from this planet, there would still be reasons to morn and be sad. It is important that individuals within the community are able to conquer this despair and continue to be a functioning member of society, for their own good and everyone else’s.

When we look at both males and females, there again seems to be an unfavorable consistency of males having a higher suicide rate. Looking through recent decades, it would seem males are four times more likely to commit suicide in comparison to females. In 2013, the percent of female suicide was only 22.1%, with males consisting of the other 77.9% [7].

Suicide doesn’t just effect the community on a resource level. It serves as a severe detriment to the personhoods of those who knew the victim, especially family members. It might as well be considered emotional homicide to the victims loved ones. This alone can trigger even more suicide due to the fact that a lot of people’s raison d’etra is living with the people they love. Suicide is despair incarnate.



With that being said, I give the floor to Con!

[1] http://www.expertboxing.com...

[2] http://www.forbes.com...

[3] http://www.bjs.gov...

[4] http://www.deathpenalty.org...

[5] http://greatergood.berkeley.edu...

[6] http://www.iflscience.com...

[7] https://www.afsp.org...

LaughItUpLydia

Con

I will be talking in terms of females and males in general, nothing specific, and nothing personal. First off I would like to note how the Burden of Proof is fully on Pro, to prove why females are better than males, and I will be refuting whatever I can get to in this amount of time. I am moreover arguing that females AND males are both effective and required, and none is better than the other. At any rate, let's examine some statistics:

The math skills of a 12 year old girl resembles that of an 8 year old boy. This tells us that males tend to be more rational and quicker thinking when it comes to word problems and geometry.
Women use the cerebral cortex for solving problems that require navigational skills. Men use an entirely different area, mainly the left hippocampus -- a nucleus deep inside the brain that's not activated in the women's brains during navigational tasks. A scientist in this study tells us that this means women are more likely to rely on landmark cues: they might suggest you turn at the 7-11 and make a right at the church, whereas men are more likely to navigate via depth reckoning -- go east, then west, etc.

However, members of both sexes excel at skills that are commonly labeled gender specific. Providing nurturing for any brain can deeply influence the way the person behaves one way or another, for example the fact that males have superiority concerning special abilities. As anyone who spends a significant time around children knows, boys tend to get a lot more practice "moving through space" -- chasing a ball, for instance -- than girls do. The hypothesis is that, as females become more involved with special and physical activities, the disparities will be less prevalent. So we do not know which gender would be better off living by themselves in the next generation; we can only predict. One century ago females had less rights (suffragette and work place choices), their general environment was home (sewing, cooking, house-keeping, etc.) and this influences their brain-type and activity, and only 19% of the U.S.'s women had jobs. At the turn of century (1996) 60% of women had jobs and they had much more variety of rights. Now, gender equality is at it's zenith and people everywhere support it. My point is that we don't know how the majorities of the two genders could evolve and change over the next decades. But we can assume, and these assumptions would mean comparing females and males to see which one is over-all "better."

See sources for back up explanations of these claims:
-Men have a good work ethic (in general).
-Men offer a lot of advice -- all for free.
-Men take care of the mechanical things.
-Men have a better sense of humor (in general).

Now I will attempt some rebuttals.

"Incarnation rates" Pro figured the statistics of females vs. males in prisons. This was shortly after she noted the unspecific facts about fighting, which from it I gathered how males tend to use physicality to fight for what they want. This is not a bad thing always. Ever since the estimated 1970's men have used their ability to conquer and fight in order to get land and for other reasons. Of course, currently there are laws that go against this instinct to fight, and this is a main reason males are in prison more than females. Another reason I would like to point out is that men tend to be in prison BECAUSE of women, this is only assertion because a great quantity of men get blamed for having 'unwanted' sex or doing something to women that makes the women uncomfortable. In my opinion, things in society is backwards and messed up, such as the activism for transgender, and these cause us to reconsider what "gender" is really defined by and what "roles" genders have in our world. Because you probably disagree with me about homosexuality and that of the like, I will not dig deeper. My point is that we cannot assume which is better by looking at the given facts of the past, because the roles of genders evolve over time. Whether they evolve into better quality or not cannot be decided.

Empathy is expressed within males too, in fact studies show (see sources) that women conceal their emotions more than men do. While studies also show that women have a desire empathy from their husbands, males generally do not, and they complete their partner's desire by showing emotional attention. This is a trait that proves males are quite thoughtful and indignant about keeping their girlfriends happy. Women mainly seek the guidance and comfort and this gets nobody anywhere. Pro says "Empathy is the key to living together in peace." If so, then men succeed in this due to their aspiration for good relationships and wish to fulfill happiness in each other.

Pro states "Even if all our bad behaviors were removed from this planet, there would still be reasons to morn and be sad." Exactly, and because behaviors in genders is the main debate here, 'suicide' is slightly irrelevant to this argument. However, I will take in what Pro said about it.

I fail to see why suicide rates prove females are better people than males. If anything, it proves the opposite, because it's almost always never the man's fault he committed suicide; rather the evidence seems to show how women influence the male's decision. But, most likely, the suicide problem with humanity is in part caused by a gene called SKA2 which fails to control stress and anxieties. One source says that, though it is not proven, the gender differences of this gene is a possible cause for the higher suicide rate in males. Since feminism and gender equality is such a big deal politically, we should pay lots more attention to the problem of suicide in males and try to lower the percentages. As I said before, it's usually never the person who commit's fault for his feelings.

"Women are, in general, more prepared to seek help and show their distress. A female attempt is often closer to a cry for help, hoping for a response," Newsweek reporter said. "When (the male) makes a suicide attempt, he doesn"t want anyone to hear it, he wants to succeed." This actually says a lot about the different personalities that general sexes have.

My conclusion is that I have successfully refuted all that Pro claimed. I look forward to the next round!

http://www.webmd.com...
http://www.infoplease.com...
http://www.humanresourcesmba.net...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...?
http://www.newsweek.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Kozu

Pro

Thank you Con,

I believe there has been a bit of a misunderstanding as to what this debate is about. Con says that were speaking about these genders in general, this is not what I’m arguing for, far from it.

I am arguing that females possess better traits in regard to their personhoods, hence the resolution “Better People”. I win the debate so long as I can prove females are comparably better in their personhoods. The Ox Ford dictionary defines personhood as

-“the quality or condition of being an individual person.”

Personhood doesn’t entail a specific gender. That’s why I tried to explain in R1&2 that “personhood” should be judged on qualities of behavior and ability to live together as other persons. Being strong or intelligent also do not entail any specific gender.

Personhood is a trait like being strong or intelligent are. One trait does not refute the other. I would agree that males are better at being strong, or maybe more intelligent. But this debate here is about personhood. I would agree that strength and intelligence play a part in one’s personhood, but if they serve a detriment to one’s personhood, the facts then begin to reflect the reality.

This is indeed the case, as it is very evident in my R2 where I demonstrate the staggering incarceration rates for men, as well with the suicide rates. These are not the results of people with good behaviors, as I defined. These things happened because males by their very nature tend to be more aggressive, less empathetic, more depressed, and less honest. Most of my sources from R2 back this claim.

I tried using the idea of what a world would be like without one gender or the other and then ask, which would be more peaceful? In order to demonstrate the differences between each genders personhood.

Now, on to rebuttals.

-Incarceration Rates-

Con acknowledges that males are usually more physical, and more likely to “fight for what they want”. As a result, he states that this is why he believes that males tend to be the ones who end up in prison. This is exactly the case! Society put them in prison for a reason, because people don’t need this primitive instinct to fight, this, aggression. We are civilized and communicate through language, and get what we want through commerce. This is why I quoted Stephen Hawkings quote about aggression being unnecassary.

I made a line between males and incarceration rates because they’re a direct result of this instinct to fight. The instinct to fight entails two of the four bad behaviors I have defined (aggression and apathy). Females possess less of both these traits which is why so few are in prison. This is what my sources suggest.

-Empathy-

My goal is to prove that females possess more empathy than men. Not prove they have none.

Con explains that females hide their emotions more than males. This assertion is unsubstantiated. I, however believe that it is men who hide their emotions more, to quote from my source

“[…] Men, for example, are especially likely to avoid divulging wounded feelings for fear that doing so will compromise their felt sense of masculinity”[1].

This is a problem. This is dishonesty. If we lie to each other, we cannot understand one another. If we cannot understand one another we can’t empathize with each other. When we stop caring about people, we end up treating them more poorly. Since females are less masculine, they are less likely to deal with these problems. That isn’t to say they don’t hide their emotions, but the data suggests that males bear the greater burden in this case.

-Suicide-

Con states that suicide is “slightly irrelevant” since were debating genders here. This is far from the truth. This entire debate is about which gender possess a better “personhood”. People who can’t cope with depression/reality and kill themselves, are not “better people”. Since suicide rates offer a direct comparison between the two genders, we can assume the gender with less suicides is either 1. Less depressed, or 2. Better able to cope with reality. Both of these two characteristics are a part of what makes up a better community.

He goes on to quote from a source that says “. A female attempt is often closer to a cry for help, hoping for a response," Newsweek reporter said. "When (the male) makes a suicide attempt, he doesn"t want anyone to hear it, he wants to succeed”

This is excellent. The females tend to cry out and try to get attention so someone can understand them. The fact that they don’t follow through is a great thing. Men wanting to succeed is bad.



Conclusion:
I believe I have sufficiently demostrated that females tend to possess better personhoods. Making them comparitively better people than males. The resolution is affirmed.



[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com...

LaughItUpLydia

Con

Thank you, Pro.

The misunderstandings have been cleared up for the most part. I am arguing that "females are not better persons than males," and this of course means that my objective is to 'prove' males are at least equal to females (in terms of morality, ethics, and empathy). The only flaw in this debate so far is that the end product will be a matter of opinion as to whether females are comparably better in their personhoods, thus I'm not sure if Pro's resolution can actually be proven. 'Personhood' doesn't entail a specific gender, but this debate is all about the Battle of the Sexes, ergo the title. I am battling on the side of males and debating why males are at least equal in personhood to females, but there is no way to do this without comparing the two genders specifically. I will proceed.

Personhood is "The quality or condition of being an individual person." Pro claims that this is different and does not include the traits of the physical body. I believe that the definition of this word does not exclude 'being strong or intelligent' and we should not assume that it does. For example, a main part of a males' personhood is identified by their abilities to think in a special way and to use physicality to their advantage, and this is something we can't just ignore. Being strong and intelligent influences the personalities of males. It seems as if Pro is using some rules of this debate to
make my position impossible to 'prove,' and this is slightly unfair.

Pro says "Incarnation and suicide rates...are not the results of people with good behaviors, as I defined. These things happened because males by their very nature tend to be more aggressive, less empathetic, more depressed, and less honest."

I have refuted this with a case for why these rates are higher. Just like you can't just blame the whole suicide on the person; I argue that it's up to the people around him to want the person to live. Also, behavior means nature. You can't separate these "traits" because they fall under the same category. My main rebuttal for Pro's prison argument is that it is not always a bad thing to fight for what they want because sometimes, it's morally right. For example, Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison for a conspiracy of him trying to overthrow the government. We could easily assume that the rates are because of men's more "violent" nature, but a more enlightened person would consider that that our society conditions men into a role which by nature is more likely to encourage violent or criminal behavior. Men have always been thought of as the "gentlemen" who defend and watch out for the women and children. Here are some proven statistics that might leave your jaw open: A black person is approximately 19% more likely to be convicted than a white person, but a man is approximately 165% more likely to be convicted than a woman. Overall, women get 40% shorter sentences than men. (see sources) This just shows how wacked up society may think of males as, and why we should be appreciating their efforts to protect us over the centuries.

It is not Pro's objective to figure how females possess MORE empathy than men, because this simply cannot be proven as it is a matter of opinion (and a sweeping generalization). Instead Pro should try to prove how females' use of empathy is better as a whole than males, because males may not put this trait into use as much. Again, this is not always a bad thing. Empathy is the key to peace, and I have defended why males' nature does not require empathy as much as females,' even though they certainly do use empathy and care about their use when it comes to relationships.

Pro claims that holding back feelings is dishonesty. She states, " If we lie to each other, we cannot understand one another." Holding back their feelings actually keeps worry and pain away from others, whereas a typical female would have a whole group mourning and sympathizing alongside with her! Males save others from grief.

"This entire debate is about which gender possess a better "personhood". People who can"t cope with depression/reality and kill themselves, are not "better people"." I have already refuted this argument. I know a lot of people who would agree with me on this; depression and suicide pulls are not a result of the person's "inability to cope," but rather the overwhelming events happening and no one else who's stepping up to be an example and help them through life. Pro cannot prove if females are "more stable emotionally" than males.

Men wanting to follow through with their pulls towards suicide shows what males are like in personhood. They are indignant and passionate, empathetic and selfless because they don't want to give others the grief of having to deal with them, and these traits are all good, when suicide doesn't happen. When it does happen, it's not the male's fault, as I already proved.

Conclusion:
My case for why females are not better people than males is that females do NOT have more empathy, are NOT better at coping with life, and it IS better to have passionate fighters (males) rather than cry-baby arguers (females) to live united. And, I have again refuted Pro's arguments.

http://permutationofninjas.org...
http://www.forbes.com...
http://theprancingpapio.blogspot.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Kozu

Pro

On to the final round.

I"m very glad we could clear up the misunderstanding; it was a very real fear of mine that this may occur.
In the beginning, Con states that there is no way to judge ones personhood without first looking at their genders specifically. I believe most would find that this is not the case.

If we set two individuals up on a phone line together and masked one of the person"s voices to hide their gender, we could ask them questions that could be used to identify their personality (personhood). We could present them with theoretical scenarios or hypothetical questions, depending on their answer; we can gauge them to be a good or bad person. The genders don"t entail a specific response to these questions. However, due to males tending to be more physical, it may possibly effect their response when proposed a question about how to handle escalated conflicts that begin to get hostile.

Con is also concerned that the results of this debate will be of entirely opinionated nature. If one doesn"t read my sources, that may be the case. The facts of reality demonstrate a very real difference between males and females though. It is far more than an opinion when looking at both genders and how they interact with their community, and I have empirically proved this to be the case through the incarceration rate, rate of suicide, and ability to empathize.

Now for rebuttals,

-Incarceration Rates-

Con states that he has refuted the 92% male to 8% female statistic by trying to demonstrate there is a bias in judging in criminal cases. He attempts to show this similarity by pointing to blacks and how they 19% more likely to be convicted. The problem with this idea is that Con assumes blacks are inherently just as guilty has whites. This is not true. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, blacks make up 43% of homicides in America, despite only making up 13.2% of the entire population [1] [2]. Approximately 80% of these are black on black homicides. So in this aspect whites possess better personhoods. Con reinforces my arguments by stating that males are 165% more likely to be convicted. This is further evidence of the inherent differences between male and female personhoods. Females don"t just arbitrarily get treated as better people; they are better people, that"s why conviction rates are low. Con needs to justify why males make up 92% of the prison population, while still maintaining that men possess better or equal personhoods in comparison to females. Something I am very skeptical that can be done.

-Empathy-

Con claims it is not my objective to show females possess more empathy. This is untrue. In fact, that"s exactly what my objective is. I have very well demonstrated through my arguments and resources that men indeed either possess less empathy, or are more apathetic. By Cons own admission he states " males may not put this trait into use as much". Contrary to what con says, this serves as a detriment to anybody"s personhood. I think con is forgetting that empathy stems out much further than just inter-familial relationships. This entire planet would be much better off if we could learn to even empathize with strangers instead of just family or close friends. I don"t disagree with con when he says " males' nature does not require empathy as much as females". It is very obvious that they not only have less empathy, but also utilize it less due to their inherent nature of being more aggressive and physically fit. Once again, I am not arguing that males do not possess empathy. I am arguing that females are more empathetic. Me and Con both agree that empathy is the "key to peace", and since females are more empathetic, it becomes very clear that a theoretical world of only females would more peaceful.

-Dishonesty-

Con claims that males hiding their feelings keeps worry and other pains away, and since males hide their emotions more, it makes them better people. This seems rather illogical though. It may temporarily prevent these pains, but it does not remedy them, at best hiding emotions is a band aid. I would like to ask con; why is it people commit suicide? I would find it highly unlikely it"s due to people talking about their problems and trying to understand one another. No. It is caused from depression and apathy just as my sources in R2 claim. Both of which come from people not caring enough about each other to talk things out. I would like a source from Con explaining how men hiding their feels help a relationship.

-Suicide-

Con rejects my theory that females are better able to cope with reality/depression despite males having nearly 4 times more suicides. His only rebuttal to this is that it"s either , 1. The females fault (non-unique argument), or 2. A gene called "SKA 2" influenced stress levels and caused males to commit suicide. His excuse is that the suicide rates may differ between genders because of this gene. If he is correct, this proves my case all the more likely that females are indeed better people, because they inherently possess a lower possibility of committing suicide. This makes gender a huge factor when considering suicide.
He speculates that the relationships are healthier when males don"t follow through and only hide their emotions, but this is an unsupported claim. The very fact that men DO follow through more often strengthens my point. Taking reality prima facie, when it comes to people hiding their emotions we rarely find our self"s in a better relationship with them. Con needs to offer sources next round to back this "hiding emotions is good" claim.

Conclusion:
Con has not provided sufficient rebuttals to refute my sources. It stands to reason that females are indeed more empathetic, leading to more honest and healthier relationships. I reflect the reality of this by showing that females only make up 8% of the prison population and suicide rates are 4 times lower than males. Con also completely drops my R2 argument about aggression and how it is no longer needed, this was a very strong point since males are much more aggressive. For these reasons, I believe females are indeed "better people".

I would once again like to ask the reader to question themselves and ask; If the world was made up of only one of these genders, which gender would result in a more peaceful community?

I also would like to thank Con for participating in our debate. I have no doubt we have both invoked deep thoughts within one another on the natures of both genders personhoods.

[1] http://www.fbi.gov...
[2] http://www.cdc.gov...
LaughItUpLydia

Con

I thank you for the arguments Pro, I am unable to provide a well-written conclusion due to shortage of time. I wish I could but I am quite busy so I apologize. =( I feel I have made my arguments quite firm and viable over the previous rounds.
Debate Round No. 4
174 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LaughItUpLydia 1 year ago
LaughItUpLydia
figures
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
================================================================
>Reported vote: Death23 // Moderator action: Removed<

2 points to Pro (sources). RFD = Reasons for voting decision: This debate was about whether or not females are better people than males. Pro argued in R2 that "better people" simply means better behaved. I disagree. The measure a man is not confined to an examination of his behavior. Contributions to the community, especially professional ones, count. Pro's facts and arguments were sufficient to demonstrate that females are better behaved than males, but insufficient to demonstrate that females are better people than males. If Pro wanted this debate to be about behavior only, then Pro should have focused on behavior in the debate title and in the R1 introduction. Shifting the focus to behavior in R2 is too late. Con pointed out some qualities in males that were better, but this wasn't enough to outweigh the behavioral problems. I didn't find any of the arguments convincing. Con didn't complete the debate. Pro has heavily influenced the voters in the comments section. This isn't fair to Con. Tied for conduct. Pro used several .gov s

[*Reason for removal*] Failure to explain sources, specifically why Con's were worse. Given that this RFD only voted on sources, it was unnecessary to explain why arguments were tied. There's no reason to say only 4 words on sources when that's all your vote on.
=====================================================================
Posted by ben671176 1 year ago
ben671176
In this argument. You use Aggression as the main factor on how males are bad.

" "The human failing I would most like to correct is aggression. It may have had survival advantage in caveman days, to get more food, territory or a partner with whom to reproduce, but now it threatens to destroy us all"[6].

I challenge my opponent to show aggression itself serves a beneficial purpose. Mankind does not need this behavior any longer. It should be understood that assertiveness, competitiveness and ambition are not hostile in nature, unlike aggression is."

First off. Males can impregnate all of the females around them; females can only be impregnated once every nine months. So if you have any questions on why males are more aggressive than females. That is why, it is a biological thing; not a cultural one.

Men's suicidal rates: A cultural problem, not a man problem.

"Women have more mental problems but men are more likely to actually commit suicide:
So if women are more likely to suffer from psychological problems, to experience suicidal thoughts and attempt suicide, how do we explain why men are more likely to die by suicide?

It"s principally a question of method. Women who attempt suicide tend to use nonviolent means, such as overdosing. Men often use firearms or hanging, which are more likely to result in death."

Source:

http://www.theguardian.com...
Posted by flewk 1 year ago
flewk
"If there were to be only one gender on earth, which gender would be able to live together more peacefully?

If one were to look at the nature of females overall, and how they interact with the rest of their community"

Only going by that, the premise of this debate is null.
There is no way to determine the characteristics of genders as separate. Women behave a certain way in patriarchal societies, just like how men behave a certain way. Social gender roles determine the average nature of a person. Social gender roles have been determined by a society that contains both men and women.

For any of this to make sense at all, you would need to argue from a perspective that ignores society. You would first have to prove that Nature overpowers Nurture completely. Then, you could make the argument that female genetics is superior to male genetics.
Posted by Kozu 1 year ago
Kozu
Somebody didn't read the debate.
Posted by ProdigyFX 1 year ago
ProdigyFX
" A study using a sample of 1409 rural southern adolescents (851 females and 558 males) aged 11 " 18 years, investigated the correlation between father absence and self-reported sexual activity. The results revealed that adolescents in father-absence homes were more likely to report being sexually active compared to adolescents living with their fathers.

Source: Hendricks, C.S., Cesario, S.K., Murdaugh, C., Gibbons, M.E., Servonsky, E.J., Bobadilla, R.V., Hendricks, D.L., Spencer-Morgan, B., & Tavakoli, A. (2005).

" Being raised by a single mother raises the risk of teen pregnancy, marrying with less than a high school degree, and forming a marriage where both partners have less than a high school degree.

Source: Teachman, Jay D. "The Childhood Living Arrangements of Children and the Characteristics of Their Marriages." Journal of Family Issues 25 (January 2004): 86-111.
Posted by ProdigyFX 1 year ago
ProdigyFX
-A study of 109 juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency. Youth raised by single females is associated with higher delinquency and crime rates.

Source: Bush, Connee, Ronald L. Mullis, and Ann K. Mullis. "Differences in Empathy Between Offender and Nonoffender Youth." Journal of Youth and Adolescence 29 (August 2000): 467-478.
Posted by ProdigyFX 1 year ago
ProdigyFX
" A study using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health explored the relationship between family structure and risk of violent acts in neighborhoods. The results revealed that if the number of fathers is low in a neighborhood, then there is an increase in acts of teen violence. The statistical data showed that a 1% increase in the proportion of single-parent families in a neighborhood is associated with a 3% increase in an adolescent"s level of violence. In other words, adolescents who live in neighborhoods with lower proportions of single-parent families and who report higher levels of family integration commit less violence.

Source: Knoester, C., & Hayne, D.A. (2005). "Community context, social integration into family, and youth violence." Journal of Marriage and Family 67, 767-780.

Wanna debate me Kozu?
Posted by ProdigyFX 1 year ago
ProdigyFX
" Children in grades 7-12 who have lived with and were raised by a single mother reported lower grade point averages than those who have always lived in a home with the father present.

" Children living with their married biological father tested at a significantly higher level than those living with a nonbiological father.

Source: Tillman, K. H. (2007). Family structure pathways and academic disadvantage among adolescents in stepfamilies. Journal of Marriage and Family.

" Father involvement in schools is associated with the higher likelihood of a student getting mostly A"s. This was true for fathers in biological parent families, for stepfathers, and for fathers heading single-parent families.

Source: Nord, Christine Winquist, and Jerry West. Fathers" and Mothers" Involvement in Their Children"s Schools by Family Type and Resident Status. (NCES 2001-032). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2001.

" 71% of high school dropouts are fatherless; fatherless children have more trouble academically, scoring poorly on tests of reading, mathematics, and thinking skills; children from father-absent homes are more likely to be truant from school, more likely to be excluded from school, more likely to leave school at age 16, and less likely to attain academic and professional qualifications in adulthood.

Source: Edward Kruk, Ph.D., "The Vital Importance of Paternal Presence in Children"s Lives." May 23, 2012.
http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Posted by ProdigyFX 1 year ago
ProdigyFX
In a society where females have as much and even more opportunity than men the stats still remain the same:

Majority of doctors- Men
Majority of inventors- Men
Majority of architects-Men
Majority of philosophers-Men

Note: Study conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows-Children raised by females are more likely to be socially handicapped, and involved in crime leading to prison. The majority of criminals in prison have one thing in common. They were raised by a female.

" The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states, "Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Survey on Child Health. Washington, DC

Children raised by females show higher levels of aggressive behavior than children born into homes with the father present.
Source: Osborne, C., & McLanahan, S. (2007). Partnership instability and child well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1065-1083.

I have eleven more like this which shows the destruction that females raising children alone have perpetrated on our American society.

The contender in this debate was so pathetically weak I almost wonder if he or she was not actually pretending to be a contender and was actually on the side of the protaganist. If you had went against me Kozu you would have lost miserably.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 1 year ago
Mister_Man
KozuLaughItUpLydiaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: After rereading the debate and talking with Kozu for some time, I realized that "better people" and just "better" are incredibly different things. In regards to women being better people than men, Kozu did bring up undisputed points and was able to counter nearly everything Lydia said. Prison rates and suicide rates were the points that won it for Kozu.
Vote Placed by PM1066 1 year ago
PM1066
KozuLaughItUpLydiaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments took a leap of faith and had some gaping holes, but con did not exploit these logic flaws. For example, females attempt suicide far more often then males, but are less successful. That said, con did not refute the pro. Neither could spell "mourn" correctly.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 1 year ago
FuzzyCatPotato
KozuLaughItUpLydiaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: This whole debate is dumb. Conduct: Pro. Con forfeited last round and failed to specifically link sources throughout the round. Arguments: Pro. Pro showed that males are the overwhelming majority of prison inmates, while Con was unable to show that society or women are to blame. Pro showed that men hide their feelings. Pro showed men commit suicide; Con's responses of women and otherwise were insubstantial. Sources: Pro. Con failed to specifically link sources throughout the round; Pro had numerically more sources; Pro had higher quality sources, citing governments and studies.
Vote Placed by Mikal 1 year ago
Mikal
KozuLaughItUpLydiaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: comments
Vote Placed by footballchris561 1 year ago
footballchris561
KozuLaughItUpLydiaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.