The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
52 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
54 Points

Freedom of expression should not be supressed by accusations of sexism.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,198 times Debate No: 4094
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (31)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to invite a fellow debater to demonstrate that I am wrong when I contend that freedom of expression should not be suppressed by accusations of sexism and that the controversial comments I may make in the course of my arguments should be kept to myself.

I would welcome a challenge from a male or female but I suspect I am more likely to receive a rebuttal from a man, as there appears to be far more male members of debate.org than there are female members. Interestingly, this mirrors the relatively low number of female legislators in parliaments around the world. Feminists often attribute this to sexual discrimination, but debate.org is completely open to both sexes. So why are there not more female debaters?

One can only conclude that women, in general, are more interested in things like reading celebrity gossip magazines, chatting to their friends about relationships and going out shopping for clothes than they are in engaging in serious issues such as politics and current affairs.

Of course there are exceptions, like Condoleezza Rice for instance. It would be interesting to know how she if she has ever met any really sexist men. I wonder…

Visiting Foreign Minister: "Milk, two sugars love."

Condoleezza Rice (for it is she): "Just a cotton-pickin' second there boy, I don't make the tea around here, I'm the goddamn Secretary of freakin' State!"

V.F.M.: "Well if you're a secretary, surely it's your job to make the tea? What else do you have to do? File your nails and open the post? Now come on, darling, wiggle that sexy little bum of yours down to the kitchen and put the kettle on."

C.R.: "How dare you? You freakin' male chauvinist pig. Let me tell you that I do one hell of a lot more than open the goddamn mail, you freakin' emm eff. Don't you know I also negotiate international peace agreements in world trouble spots like the goddamn Middle East?"

V.F.M.: "Alright, alright! Calm down, pet, there's a good girl. Here, let me ask you a question. Are you married? No? I didn't think so. Now you take my advice, love. Instead of stuffing your head up with things you don't understand, go out and buy some pretty dresses, put some lippy on and I'm sure one day soon you'll make some lucky young man a lovely little housewife."

Now that would be properly sexist, but I'm not condoning that sort of prediluvian attitude towards women, far from it.

No, all I'm saying is that men should not feel ashamed to express their admiration for attractive women for fear of being accused of sexism. For example, it is common in England for a group of young men, upon spotting a beautiful girl, to chant:

Get your t~ts out,
Get your t~ts out,
Get your t~ts out for the lads!

Now, a women's rights activist might call that sexist and she might actually be right. However, it is only harmless fun and, more often than not, the girl in question obliges the young gentlemen's request. Incidentally, did you know that they have a similar chant over in Afghanistan, only there the men sing "Get your face out for the lads"?! The important thing is that the blokes did not allow politically correct dogma to interfere with their freedom of expression.

So, if you think that men are too restricted in what they can say and do and that free speech is more important than the sensibilities of a pack of ethically-sound-sandal-wearing, sustainable-source camomile tea-drinking, Fairtrade carbon-neutral organic lentil-eating radical feminists, I urge you to vote Pro for a more relaxed society and a branch of Hooters in every town!
Danielle

Con

Pro,

Your suspicion that you would be debating a male was incorrect. I am indeed a female, despite constantly being referred to as "he" on this site. In fact the assumption that I am a male on this site is not proof that women do not wish to debate, but rather enforces the notion that debating is generally perceived as a "man's sport," and therefore non-inclusive to women. Further, history shows us that women have been punished and/or discriminated against either blatantly or socially for vehemently expressing their views. For instance, you not-so-humorously portrayed feminists in a negative light in your round, while at the same time non-directly critisized women who were NOT feminists and who enjoy reading frivolous magazines instead of taking a stand in politics. I would like to state for the record that your insecurity with your manhood and/or sexuality in patronizing women should not be a deciding factor in this debate.

That said, your contribution regarding a mock meeting between Condoleeza Rice and a foreign minister has absolutely no merit in this debate. For one, you completely negate its value of contributing to your point when you said, "Now that would be properly sexist, but I'm not condoning that sort of prediluvian attitude towards women, far from it." So if this waste of space example has absolutely nothing to do with your point, then why include it in this debate? It has clearly taken up your time and mine, as well as the readers/judges who have unfortunately been subjected to your attempt at being funny (Making fun of Condoleeza's race and role in government with blatant disregard for women?! How clever! You're about as original and genuine as Carlos "Ned Holness" Mencia, mate. Gee I've honestly never heard that before :| ).

So what exactly are you advocating? Well you have asked a fellow debater to prove "that the controversial comments [you] may make in the course of [your] arguments should be kept to [your]self." You also state that "men should not feel ashamed to express their admiration for attractive women for fear of being accused of sexism." So alright... a few things. First, I hope that in pointing out your less than amusing/original sense of humor, I have demonstrated why you should keep those "controversial" a.k.a. trying-too-hard-to-be-witty-and-shocking comments to yourself, for the simple fact that they do not contribute to your argument, and instead just take up space and waste time (put it this way - we're not laughing WITH you...).

Second, there is a difference between saying things that can be CONSIDERED sexist, and saying things that are downright offensive. Men CAN express their admiration for attractive women without being sexist, therefore one should find more intelligent and socially acceptable ways to vocalize their views (especially during a debate on debate.org, where one would almost certainly get called out for being "abusive" if they did not comply with traditional debate etiquette).

Now since you are Pro, the burden is on you to prove the resolution to be true. Even if I agree with you, you have offered no acceptable evidence that would compel anyone to vote Pro. You mentioned chanting songs that repeat phrases like "Get your t~ts out" are acceptable because most women oblige, however you cannot prove that to be true (personal experience doesn't count, because I can say that in MY personal experience, that is not the case).

I don't think men are too restricted in what they can say; they can say anything they want, and unless it's unlawful, they will not be penalized other than MAYBE having a few people call them sexist. To that I say quit whining and grow a pair of balls! You're saying that women shouldn't bitReport this Argument
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

brian_eggleston forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Sexism can inhibit the personal growth and self-esteem of women, and thus prevent them from ever living up to their potential (which can greatly hinder the progression and well-being of society) if, say, they were willing and able to be a prominent and prestiogious figure. Or, think of it this way - your sexist comments might make women think twice about taking on those sexy/slutty/sultry/ultra femme roles that we all know and love. Either way, it'll be your loss should you continue making incredibly sexist remarks, instead of finding a more articulate way to compliment your women. My opponent has not stated otherwise, or even made a somewhat decent case. Plus the whole forfeited round thing was not cool. WOO VOTE 4 ME!
Debate Round No. 2
brian_eggleston

Pro

Firstly, I would like to sincerely apologise for missing the last round. This is the first time I have done this but I spent most of the holiday weekend out at sea, far away from any wi-fi masts or Internet cafes.

Secondly, I would like to thank my opponent for joining this debate and for taking the time to maul my opening arguments in such a comprehensive and ruthless manner!

Before I develop my argument further, however, I should like to make it clear that my debates are sometimes humorous in nature and do not, necessarily, reflect my own personal opinion (though there's many a true word said in jest, of course).

For instance, I argued that defunct websites should be removed from the Internet, using my own site as a prime example of a waste of server space:

http://www.debate.org...

I also argued that it would be permissible to sell Indonesian people in pet shops, even though I actually believe this would not only be morally reprehensible but totally illegal:

http://www.debate.org...

Similarly, I successfully demonstrated that God is a racist, even though I don't even believe in God:

http://www.debate.org...

Therefore, I would ask that the judges should vote on the debate itself and not what they personally agree with.

In my opponents rebuttal she wrote: "Making fun of Condoleez(z)'s race and role in government with blatant disregard for women?! How clever! You're about as original as Carlos "Ned Holness" Mencia, mate."

Sorry, I'm not quite with her there, but if she is implying I was making fun of the Secretary of State's race or gender, I have obviously given her the wrong impression. You see, I write with a British accent - Ms. Rice's spoof dialogue was merely my attempt at writing with an American accent - the inclusion of this imagined conversation, incidentally, was to put my argument into context.

By the way, I had never heard of Carlos Mencia before so I Googled him. It seems he is not, generally, well regarded due to his reputation for plagiarism. However, being based in London, I have never seen Condi Rice imitated or otherwise satirised, so I can assure readers that he passage in R1 is wholly original, even if my opponent didn't find it very funny.

My opponent also wrote:

"I would like to state for the record that your insecurity with your manhood and/or sexuality in patronizing women should not be a deciding factor in this debate."

Aha! She's got me banged to rights there! I am, indeed, a screaming homosexual. I take it that the "L" in the "theLwerd" stands for "lesbian" and that my opponent is also gay so we share something in common. With this in mind, I think we would get on well and I would like to take this opportunity to invite her, and her girlfriend, to stay at my house in the beautiful High Tatra Mountains of Slovakia. I would like to do that, but my wife (that means nothing by the way, lots of gay men are married) is very suspicious of other women since she discovered that I have been seeing a girl in Istanbul on a regular basis since 1993 (again, that doesn't mean anything, it is just a case of being in denial about my sexuality).

You know, I explained to my wife that, since I met my girlfriend more than six years before I met her, if I was having an affair with anyone, it wasn't with my girlfriend, it was with her. Unfortunately, though, she failed to see the logic of my argument and my female acquaintances are no longer welcomed in the house.

Never mind, though, I have a yacht moored in a marina in central London (from where I am writing now) and I would be delighted to see my opponent and her lesbian lover come aboard my boat one day. The vessel has a luxury interior, a well-appointed aft deck and cruises at 35 knots. On the downside, however, she only has one double berth, which means the three of us will have to share a bed. But that's okay – I'm gay – the girls can trust me. (Hmm…thinking about it though, I can't absolutely guarantee that I won't suddenly turn straight during the night – I have a presentiment that that sharing a bed with a couple of lesbians might just cure me!)

Anyway, to the argument proper…my opponent continued:

"Second, there is a difference between saying things that can be CONSIDERED sexist, and saying things that are downright offensive. Men CAN express their admiration for attractive women without being sexist, therefore one should find more intelligent and socially acceptable ways to vocalize their views (especially during a debate on debate.org, where one would almost certainly get called out for being "abusive" if they did not comply with traditional debate etiquette)."

Since I feel chastised by your admonishing tone, I have duly refrained from using sexist language, thus my freedom of expression has been suppressed by accusations of sexism and I therefore urge you to vote Pro for an end to interference with free speech.
Danielle

Con

First, I don't see how any of my opponent's past debates have any relevance to this one. If the point he was trying to make was that he does not agree with the resolution as-written, that's fine. Seeing as how this is a debate, it doesn't matter whether or not he agrees with this topic or others -- the point is that he must argue his position effectively.

Second, in referencing Carlos Mencia in relation to my opponent, I was merely suggesting that Pro's "jokes" about Condy's race/job were trite, as are many of Carlos'jokes.

Third, I would like to commend my opponent for being so quick-witted and insightful as to decipher the clear meaning behind my username. He assumes that with a username like theLwerd, I must be a lesbian... Right, because there are NO other words in the English language that begin with the letter L. Further, obviously if my username was theDwerd, it would mean that I was a dyk3; theBwerd would imply that I am a box monster, theCwerd would detail that I am a carpet muncher, theVwerd would explain that I am a vagina lover, etc. Yes, all variations of this username would point no other truth than I am, in fact, a lesbian.

Similarly, the username brian_eggleston proves that my opponent clearly has a fascination with a man who goes by this name, thus proving that he is in fact a homosexual (because Pro's a male... and besides, he admits this identity in his rebuttal). Because of this, I would find it highly disrespectful to not only my opponent's wife, but to (all of) his gay lover(s) for my alleged girlfriend and I to join him on his supposed yacht - a.k.a. mini sailboat - as no gay men have the brains or balls to make enough money to afford a yacht (they're all out getting HIV, at least that's what I've heard from fellow debaters like Solarman *shrugs*). Further, truth be told I don't even HAVE a girlfriend...

As a raging lesbian, I have been known to reject things like wearing deoderant, wearing women's clothing, and especially shaving... anywhere. Thus it's been really hard for me to get a date lately - even the dyk3 loving femmes won't bite - but I acknowledge that with my good looks and big b...rains my opponent would probably abadon homosexuality for me (at least for the night). This is only another reason to politely decline his bedroom invitation, as I want no part in the gay drama that will inevitably ensue.

Anyway, my opponent concludes his round by pointing out that because he felt chastised by me, he has refrained from using any sexist language, and thus his freedom of expression has been supressed and you should vote Pro. NONSENSE! Let me remind everybody of my opponent's orientation... G A Y... meaning he has no ba...ckbone. This concludes that regardless of my speech, he would have felt scared, timid or "chastised" like a little school girl, despite what I said and/or how nice I said it. Therefore my gender and my speech have nothing to do with my oppponent's feelings, so you should disregard his request.

Further, even if what Pro said was true, his choosing to "supress his freedom" was of no fault of mine -- I didn't say or do anything, INCLUDING accuse of him being sexist, so his reasoning for not saying certain things have nothing to do with my tone. And finally on this point, Pro notes that he has refrained from using sexist language specifically, meaning that what was supposedly supressed actually WAS sexist, and would have been sexist regardless of whether or not anyone has accused him of anything.

Therefore what he has said in his last round actually translates to the fact that people should be allowed to say sexist things without being accused of sexism. Not only does that make little logical sense (so people should be allowed to eat ice cream, but we're not allowed to call people out on the fact that they eat ice cream...?), but it also does not comply with the resolution.

Finally, I would like to point out that I still firmly oppose the topic at hand. If Pro wants the freedom to express his homosexuality by painting himself in all-rainbow colors while wearing nothing but a kid size speedo and parading through Walt Disney World, I believe that I should be able to call him sexist, amongst other things (my accusations don't have to be true) to stop that heinous display.

I also believe that should my opponent do the gay thing and go back to beauty school (to gain redemption for that hideous and 80s haircut he so proudly presents in his avatar), and he were to meet a nice, less attractive and more hairy gentleman that Pro could finally settle down with, and thus he posts a picture of them 2 on their out-n-proud honeymoon naked and intertwined, that I should be able to accuse Pro of sexism - or anything else - if that were to convince him to limit his so-called freedom and take the picture down. If you agree, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Rezzealaux 9 years ago
Rezzealaux
Love the style of CON's R3.
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
Omfg, hahaha, Con, that argument was absolutely beautiful *can't stop laughing* You got my vote there.... *laughs a bit more*
Posted by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
Thanks for taking that debate in the right spirit, theLwerd. Your final argument was genuinly clever and witty. It also proved conclusively that I had no worthwhile argument in the first place, so I voted for you!

P.s. It really is a sports cruiser though, not a little sailboat.

P.P.s. The photo in the my avatar is quite an old one - I am going to update it in the light of your comments!
Posted by leethal 9 years ago
leethal
Good question, Korezaan. 25 characters.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
How can someone saying "That's sexist" suppress your freedom???
Posted by HellKat 9 years ago
HellKat
I think if a bunch of guys chanted that at me I'd say something to the effect of, "But you're already out"
31 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Udel 1 year ago
Udel
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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: Pro says expression shouldnt be stifled by accusations. Con says accusations hold people accountable for their words which might be offensive or dangerous. Pro ff a round which is bad conduct and he loses conduct points. Con says sexism can hurt women, so calling men out for it is useful and their freedom should be put in check if not stifled.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by SaintNick 8 years ago
SaintNick
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by numa 8 years ago
numa
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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