The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Humanism is a better ideology then Feminism

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,470 times Debate No: 59814
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




For this first round, I will merely say to my opponent; good day sir or madame. I wish you luck in this debate. I will begin by going over the definition of humanism and feminism.

An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

The ideology of humanism covers all human matters. It protects men, women, animals, our planet, our technology, our sciences, the actions we humans do, and so much more. Feminism claims to be for equality, but if they were for equality, why is it that Feminists and the M.R.A. (Men's Rights Movement) are so opposed to each other? The M.R.A. fights for equality, and feminism CLAIMS to. So if they really fought for equality, why wouldn't they be allied?

I'll just leave that initial argument there to start up a conversation. Whoever accepts my debate, good luck to you, sir or madame.


I am a sir. I want to get this out of the way because, and I am not going to say that you were going to do this, some people think feminists are "crazy, man-hating bitches." So, I am not crazy to my knowledge, I don't hate men (that'd be a horrible existence, right?) and I am not what the theoretical speaker means by bitches.

Your definition of humanism contradicts with what you say humanism is in your last paragraph. Humanism advocates for the "attachment of prime importance to human rather than divine matters". Nowhere in here do we see how animals fall under this scope. Unless you would say that animals are human matters, and I am sure most vegans and vegetarians would disagree.

I don't really have a problem with your definition, but it is rather simplistic. Just like how you can give a definition for Christianity, but this doesn't really explain what a person means when they call themselves Christian. I'd say that definition is more of a mission statement, and how it is achieved is by dismantling systematic patriarchal values, where men can also be damaged as well. Patriarchal values are where masculine ideals are seen as more valid in many ways from feminine characteristics. A way this can hurt men is that a certain shame is placed on men that are victims of rape (saying they should have fought back, should have enjoyed it, can't be raped, etc.) and molestation, especially by an elder (saying they should have enjoyed it, what's the problem, etc.).

It sounds like feminism and humanism are compatible, and with such a negative connotation of feminists, why would people choose to be considered a feminist and not a humanist? I'd like to point you to an excerpt from an article[1]: "In a perfect world that prospect [humanism] would be enough and we could declare feminism redundant but that would also be a world in which women were running circa half the countries and institutions. It would be a world where violence against women wasn’t of epidemic proportions. It would be a world where women occupied an equal amount of Fortune 500 jobs or had an equal chance at some of the world’s biggest honours such as the Nobel- or the “Man” Booker Prizes.

Alas, we are light-years from such a world. Especially in Africa. And it is often in dispute of feminism's appropriateness to African traditions that the irritating question, “Why feminism, why not just humanism?” is posed to me.
In truth, ours is a continent for men by men to men at men with men ALL about men.
In fact it bemuses me that while in many other parts of the world the word ‘man’ is being increasingly replaced with ‘man and woman’ or simply with ‘people’ when actually speaking of human beings of both genders, in Africa, oh no no no, Man is capitalised. Man eats, Man breathes, Man thinks, Man shits. Man na Person!

Woman, well she picked the incomparably short end of the stick. Tough luck? Well, yes, but, you see, thanks to feminism she no longer has to hope that men, however humanist they may be, shall some dazzling day fight for all women to have equal access to basic human rights such as education, anti-discrimination or inheritance laws. Instead she can use feminist tools – and she has done – to be able to vote, get a bank account, even – if she is lucky – to wear a mini skirt (yippie!), let alone to fight for access to powerful positions in society."

You say that MRAs fight for equality, and feminists "claim to", giving the impression that Men's Rights Activists are more legit than feminists. Other than you bold assertion that you are right, can you back this up? As for why they are opposed, I'll just borrow from what I said in the comments. "Uh, the reason they disagree (and it seems you buy into MRA being more legit than feminists, give me a break) is because MRA, wait for it, ADVOCATE FOR MEN'S RIGHTS AND FEMINISM ADVOCATES FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS! Wow, it's almost like we could look at the definitions for these two ideologies and see the difference!"

Before I sign off, may I say that the burden of proof is on you to show that Humanism is better than feminism, and all I have to do is negate you. Good day.

Debate Round No. 1


Well, no. My definition of humanism does not contradict what I say, because you see, humans are animals just as much as the other animals which occupy this world. Also, even if that weren't the case, (Which, I don't know what we would be then.) animals are still an occupant of this planet, and we share it with them by domesticating animals such as dogs, cats, snakes, and many other animals you can think of. Other domesticated animals have been used for food as well, such as cows, chickens and pigs.

I agree with your third paragraph pretty much, those within a patriarchy mindset would probably see males acting feminine as problematic, and men getting molested and such would probably be seen by patriarchs as silly. But you seem to think that there is a patriarchy in America, which there most definitely is not. Is there gender stereotypes? Hell yes. But patriarchy? That's not even close to true.

In this next paragraph, I am going to assume that what you say is true. Alright, so those are problems that woman have today. But you would imply that humanism would not be "enough" to fix those problems. If the world's governments and leaders all were under the mindset of merely being for the good of the human species in general, the not only would the problems of woman be covered, but also men, which there are men's rights issues. If asked, I can tell you them. So sure, I agree with you, humanism may not nearly be enough to have much of an impact on the world to get rid of those issues, but really, Feminism isn't equipped to deal with problems like the supposed issues in Africa relating to women's rights. It's lucky Feminists have gained ANY ground in politics, really. Also, I am going to assume that what you mean by "our continent" is referring to the western world, right? America? Please elaborate on that next round. Anyways, if so, ours is a continent for men? No, not really. Considering that we have plenty of women living and having successful lives here, that simply isn't true. By men? Technically true, the founding fathers did not have a female in their ranks, but so what? To men? Again, not true. At men? Not true. With men? Yeah, that's accurate. All about men? No, absolutely not. Now, is the capitalization of the world "man" meant to express patriarchal values? If not, I don't know why that's off concern. If so, I'd like to see a link of proof if you would give that.

Now, you are correct here. Feminist ideals did earn women rights back in there day. Back in day, feminism did genuinely fight for equality within the genders. Women did fight to get things like being able to gain education, being able to vote, et cetera. But you know what? They didn't hate men in the process, they didn't make clothing mocking the suicides of men, they fought for equality between the genders just like the M.R.A. does today. And if you were to tell me that Feminism still does that today, I'd have the hardest time believing you.

Yes, I will back this up. If you read through this article shown here, it tells you the goal of the M.R.A. and frankly, it sounds reasonable. It sounds like they are pushing for equality, and they do say that there opponents are feminists politically, but its not hateful, its not meant to arouse anger.
On the other hand however, let's go find a feminist organization and see their goals. Ah, Feminist Majority Foundation. Here is there goals as well. Now, I would say that sounds incredibly reasonable from what I read. It sounds good on paper and I frankly don't pose a problem with it. But then, we get things like this:
and this...
also this (What happened after my second link.)

And suddenly, after I see things like that happen and more modern-day feminism loses its credibility saying it fights for equality, if it fought for equality, them and the M.R.A. would be able to get along. Notice in the first video the man speaking is quiet and calm and the woman is cussing and being rather rude to the man.

Humanism is an ideology that covers everyone, that is for the benefit and health and goodness of human beings despite what's between your legs, what the pigment of your skin is, or what orientation you are, and so much more. What modern day feminism does today actually gives a different definition in my eyes, and this is off feminist action, a little observation if you will, quoted from one of my favorite You-tubers, and I will be ending this round here on that note.

"Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal by focusing soley on the issues of one of them." -TJ Kirk AKA The Amazing Atheist


Jesus Christ. Okay, yeah, we are animals, but it's called HUMANISM. It advocates for attaching importance to HUMAN rather than divine or supernatural matters. That's like creating a system that advocates for lion needs and calling it lionism, but saying it covers all other animals. We may domesticate animals, but to say humanism covers ALL animals? Nah.

You want examples of a patriarchy? Wage gap[1], more than 80% of Congress is male[2], in 2013 more than 700 bills were proposed to regulate women bodies (0 were proposed to regulate the bodies of men)[3], a women has a 1 in 5 chance of being raped in her lifetime [4], victims of rape are often criticized for wearing the wrong clothes, ETC.

There is something you have wrong here: feminism is for BOTH GENDERS. It's called feminism because in the beginning, women had like zero rights. You also say here that "feminists are lucky to have gained any ground in politics." Uh, the hard work of women to show the radical idea that women are people too is not luck. F*ck you for saying so. Actually I was quoting for an article, but yeah it meant the West. The reason the whole Man thing was included was to show that in Africa especially, it is the Men that have some liberty and women that suffers. w

Feminism still does fight for equality but it recognizes women have the short end of the stick. Men, in general, are privileged in America but are still victims of sexism. I've hear it put like this: "When you shoot a gun, the recoil may hurt, but not as bad as the person taking the bullet." Also, Men's Rights Activists are literally ONLY for men but they are so much more legit? Yeah, sure. Makes total sense. This idea that feminists hate men is a stereotype that is completely untrue. What you are doing is taking the exception and making them the rule. I am a feminist, and obviously I don't hate men. Feminists hate sexism, but if you think that applies to men then I guess that says more about you than feminists.

Here's a way of thinking about MRAs. Say, you get an ice cream cone of three scoops. Your friend only gets an ice cream cone of 1 scoop based on a completely arbitrary reason. Your friend complains, she gets one of your scoops so you both have two, and you start whining and crying because girls are so privileged.
Here's an SNL skit about MRAs.

Okay, let's turn this around then. If MRAs were REALLY for equality, then wouldn't feminists agree with them? That's what I call a double standard and a crippling misunderstanding of the issue. I didn't watch the video because I value having brain cells, but isn't it a possibility this woman was upset because her feminism is something she is passionate about? Let's be honest, in the time where Fox News is the one of the biggest news networks, acting rationally and calmly just doesn't get it done anymore.

Yeah, I should have known you listened to the Amazing Atheist. He's an Internet atheist with a huge superiority complex and a high school dropout, right? Yeah, let's get our information and opinions from that guy. Going for equality despite gender (which isn't which genitalia you have, by the way), race, and sexual orientation sounds exactly like feminism. I have two videos by Laci Green about feminism:

Debate Round No. 2


Yes, and animals are important to human beings, for the reasons I had already mentioned. And yes, it does cover all animals pretty much. Even if it didn't my argument would still be valid, due to having it cover to the ones we just use as pets or food and other necessities.

I am going to go over and argue against your reasons by each individual one, just so you know the order of events in this next paragraph.

1. The wage gap.
The problem the entire wage gap argument in my eyes that basically, a bunch of statistics are gathered up, averaged out, and people say "Oh look, women are payed less." (Bear in mind, I am implying the truth, not saying it is. You can find hundreds of statistics that go all over the place, but I am going to assume that this is true, just because it doesn't hold up even so.) And feminists who observe that women are payed less, like you, instantly assume "Oh look, patriarchy!" without even taking other factors into account. Such as women having periods, having different values, different spending habits, having pregnancies. There are plenty of ways in which women behave differently then men. Maybe even, women are less ambitious in the work place. Have you considered also its the fear of maternity leave that has employers not wanting to move women into higher positions in a company? I'm not saying these are all true, but there is other factors that need to be considered other then making a rapid, instant assumption. There's nuance very present, and I know that everyone hates ambiguity at times, but it is here, and it must be confronted as to understand the truth without making a flawed, quick assumption just to try to support a viewpoint.

2. Congress male percentage: Your point is? I can pretty much use my last argument here too, there is ambiguity and nuance present, and instead of making a rapid, quick-to-judge assumption, you need to dig deeper.

3. Body Regulation: Now, that's less of a patriarchal ordeal and more of a political party ordeal. There are both men and women who are against abortion, and both men and women who are for it. It isn't a gender thing at all.

4. Rape Chance: I could use this argument for males too, claiming there is a female dominance in this country too at that statistic, clearly, that is wrong.

5. Clothing: That viewpoint is very, very unpopular, and its not even within politics. It just is rooted within some civilians minds as an idea, and that is it.

Feminism's action has not supported both genders, and yes, that is true I suppose. In this next argument, you straw man my argument entirely, a logical fallacy. For that was not meant to show disrespect. Modern-day feminism became popular again and earned some stance in the political world via social networks that feminists are popular on, such as Twitter and Tumblr. To see a group originated from those places is rare, so that is why I say they are lucky, and why, they still, do not have much buck to their kick. And it's good you bring places like Africa, because you may be right there is patriarchy in Africa (Even though Feminism isn't armed to deal with it) it's good to acknowledge it may exist.)

You contradict your argument when you said this: " Men's Rights Activists are literally ONLY for men but they are so much more legit?" In the comments section didn't you say: "Uh, the reason they disagree (and it seems you buy into MRA being more legit than feminists, give me a break) is because MRA, wait for it, ADVOCATE FOR MEN'S RIGHTS AND FEMINISM ADVOCATES FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS! Wow, it's almost like we could look at the definitions for these two ideologies and see the difference!" So does that go to show that feminism is less "Legit" as well? My opponent seems to be contradicting what he says. And sure, not all feminists hate men, I am certain. But recent actions by feminists such as the T-shirt I had shown you and how it spawned have that question be asked.

I already mentioned the difference. Feminists became the enemy of the M.R.A., the M.R.A. never made enemies of feminists. If you actually had watched the videos I linked (Which I recommend doing so you are not being ignorant to a segment of my argument) the M.R.A. representatives were rather tame and negotiable, however, the Feminists, again, were rude, cussing and crude. And you can be passionate about something while remaining calm. And yes, being calm does get points across. Look at political speeches, and tell me otherwise.

You realize he's a comedian, right? The superiority complex is put on for the humor, as is his excessive swearing, mockery, et cetera. But that is irrelevant, and frankly, you do not invalidate the quote. But I do agree with you about gender, my apologies. The word "sex" should be more suiting then. But no, actions of feminism have showed that it quite does not. Humanism covers such things, it covers it all, and with a positive and innovative manner. Feminism, does not. Actions speak louder then words. Good day.


You seem to be confused what the wage gap actually means. It means that a man and a woman working at the same position are paid less. This isn't about spending habits, or maternity leave. This ambiguity isn't present, and this whole maternity leave and periods being factors against hiring a person is stupid. The US has the one of the shortest periods for maternity leave, and there is no national program for mother's on this leave[1].

Uh, the point is that females make up at least half the population but have a fifth the representation in it's governing body. You claim there to be a grey area here my rapid, instantly assuming feminist brain is looking over, but unless you expect for me to open my heart and gain this information, I'm going to need an examples.

Uh, no, that's a patriarchal ordeal. I don't know if actually read my argument, but there were SEVEN HUNDRED bills proposed to regulate the bodies of women. Now, I know republicans are persistent, but are you saying there were 700 bills on abortion alone? And the idea that because there are men and women that disagree/agree with abortion makes this NOT a gender issue is laughable at best and a poor attempt to sweep this under the rug at worst. Do you know what makes this a gender issue? There were 700 bills about the bodies of women, and none about men! I don't see where the confusion is?

What did you even say here? Are you saying females dominate rape? You could back up your position with facts and resources but I guess you couldn't be asked. The point was that victims are blamed when they shouldn't be.

Uh, you said feminists are lucky to have any ground in politics. You never say modern feminists, or extreme feminists, you just say feminists. From such a vague statement I thought you mean past feminism that got women's rights. So there wasn't a strawman there. It was you failing to specify which feminism, probably because you couldn't be asked. You can disagree with feminists, but to say they are lucky because they found a foothold in the modern day is plain disrespectful and dishonest. You say feminists aren't equipped to handle issues in Africa (not even sure what that means), though I'm assuming you got this information from one of the voices in your head because you don't even try to back this up. You even admitted in some round that humanism probably can't solve issues in Africa either, so what is even the point in saying this?

I didn't contradict myself. Feminism is a movement for gender equality and to stop sexism. Women are often the victims of sexism, so women's rights are often what is fought for. I'd like to point out again that you seem to really dislike feminists but MRAs are cool in your book because the voices, I guess. Again, you are taking the exception and making it the rule.

So your next paragraph can be summed up with, again, taking the exception and making it the rule. Being calm can get one's point across, but it isn't the only way. Also, you contradicted yourself here. You say feminists made enemies of the MRAs, not the other way around. However, go back to the second round, and you admit the MRAs say feminists are their enemies. Which is it, bud?

You quoted him as if he was an authority on the subject. He's not, and he's definitely not qualified to be talking about such issues. May I also point out here that you are getting your ideas on gender politics... from a comedian?

Debate Round No. 3


I'm not confused in any regard as to what the wage gap is. Clearly you are confused, I meant this all in regards to what may relate to the factors of the wage gap. And sure, but like I said in my argument, some may not be true. But there are factors like that out there feminists like yourself ignore in regards to the wage gap. I had listed those reasons as to show you some that you haven't considered. And I am sure you could ask questions to the businesses whom pay less to their female employees instead of instantly assuming that there is misogyny.

Yes, I do expect you to open your heart and go gain information about this. To research instead of making rapid claims, as feminists do quickly in regards to the wage gap, and also the male to female ratio in the government. Want examples and factors to consider? I already gave you them in my wage gap argument, which in this one, I could just copy and paste. Which I shall do, and you can go back and read the examples given in that argument for possible factors you look over to instantly assume misogyny.

And sure, abortion was to narrow, my apologies. But still, pretty much around the area of pregnancy. So close enough. And no, it quite isn't. You see, that's like saying a bill only relating to men is signs of female dominance. Which for obvious reasons, is ridiculous. Even if there are 700 or so bills relating to men's sexual reproduction, nobody would assume that. Besides, if the head of our government was against women, why would they give you a choice with the bill? Let's be honest, a true misogyny wouldn't give women the choice of rejecting the bills. My paragraph regarding rape was an example, by the way, Pardon the confusion.

Well, first of all, I shouldn't need to specify. Clearly I mean feminists of today, talking about the feminists from years ago would be pointless. What things are being done in the name of feminism today is what is wrong, and I do not agree with it whatsoever. And yes, it was a straw man, by the way. You had exaggerated my argument to make it easier, and also I believe to insult me personally. And that is in fact a straw man. And what I mean by that? I already explained it all, to repeat myself would be redundant. And right now? No, humanism could not probably fix big-time problems, the ideals are not strong enough in our world today. But, like any idea, if it grows, it certainly could bring forth some action.

Actually, still, I am not. And woman are usually the victims of sexism? There is obvious men's rights issues that I can tell you. In domestic violence cases where the man is the victim, the guy is not nearly taken as seriously as you may want to believe. In regards to child possession cases, guess who pays child support and doesn't get the child more often? Men. Double standards like women who are molested or hit on without consent is a horrible thing (Which I am not saying it isn't) and men who are molested or hit on without consent are not taken seriously at all. People call that guy most likely gay, or ask "Hey, why didn't you just enjoy it?" I could go on and on, but both of the sexes have equality issues. And why M.R.A. is cool in my book and not feminists? Because the M.R.A. actually stands for equality within both genders, and wants equality between males and females. What feminists are doing shows that men are just sexist pigs. That's the impression feminism gives off entirely.

My opponent can say that it is taking the exception and making it the rule as much as he likes, but after reviewing it, I do not see that. Moving along, it doesn't matter if there is other ways across. It is called political correctness, there is certain ways to get points across and screaming and insulting the opposition right after pulling a fire alarm, wasting the fire departments time and effort in thoughts of saving people's lives just to "get a point across" is not okay. No, I didn't contradict myself. I should have elaborated. POLITICAL enemies. Opponents. People who disagree. Et cetera, the feminists literally make the M.R.A. their enemies, and its frightening.

Not qualified? Sir, there is no qualifications for freedom of speech. And so what if I am getting some of my ideas from a comedian? George Carlin was a comedian. Would you deny that he has good ideas about America just because he sprinkles in jokes over them? No, you wouldn't with anyone.

Since this is the last round, we had a good debate. And it will be up to the audience to whom is the winner. It was a pleasure debating you, have a pleasant life. And I recommend to you personally to do some research on the history of humanism. Enlighten yourself. And how modern-day humanists act.


1. Wage Gap Response: Wage gap is women getting paid less for doing the same job. The factors you listed were for reasons why women might not get hired. There is a difference. You give reasons like maternity leave, but the person who's video I linked was young and someone less qualified, and a male, was getting paid more. I'd look up which shade of grey this is but that book is sexist too.

2. Lack of Representation: Ma... maternity leaves? Periods??? Women shouldn't be allowed to hold office because of periods and maternity leave? Not to mention fathers, in some countries, also go on leave and you are also assuming all women want to have a child, is a sexist argument in my eyes.

3. Laws on the Bodies of Women: Here's the thing you aren't getting. These are bills that control women bodies. You know bodily autonomy? These rules go against that. If there were 700 bills proposed to regulate the bodies of men, even if it was only relating to pregnancy (which I'm pretty sure they aren't all about pregnancy, but okay), and 80% of the people voting on this stuff were female, I would assume some matriarchy stuff going on there. However, it's the opposite, and the idea that "Oh, well, if we lived in a system that systematically favored men over women then all of democracy would collapse because reasons." We do still live in a democratic republic, you know? There are rules that are in place so you can't just go "You know what? Women can't have abortions. Make it illegal!" Pretty weak argument.

4. "Strawman" and Humanism: When saying such a broad statement as "Feminists are lucky to gain ANY (especially when feminists had already had a place in politics, so kind of confusing) ground in politics" there may be confusion. You didn't specify "gain ground in today's politics" or "modern-day feminists". You say blanket statements as "ANY" and "feminists." Your inability to explain is not my strawman.

On the humanism topic, what I see here is you admitting humanism can't fix Africa. So what you are saying is that you claim Humanism is just as ineffectual as feminism. Your premise is that Humanism is better. Sounds like you just negated your own premise.

5. Men are victims too. Notice how I have said many times before that men can be victims of sexism but women are victims to it in more areas. 1 in 4 women are victims of domestic abuse[1]. I already stated rape statistics. It sounds like you are misconstruing my argument here. I even listed the dismissal of male victims in rape and domestic violence situation, so preaching to the choir, mate. To say that men are victimized to the same extent by women from sexism is wrong. You then talk about how MRAs are truly the knights in shining armor for men everywhere. Not women, though. You haven't shown that they are for equality between the sexes. Your quote about feminists by TJ "High School Dropout" Amazing Atheist applies more for MRAs than feminists.

6. The Exceptions and Rules: Oh. I see. You don't see it that way so I'm wrong. I'm glad your subjective reading on the facts is enough to apply to an objective truth. It'd be cool to, you know, see the facts so we could all make sense of them. No? Okay. By the way, you did contradict yourself, you just clarified later.

7. TJ "HSDO" AA. You misunderstood. He is qualified to speak about these issues. He is not qualified to be an authority on these issues on his word alone. George Carlin was insightful on issues. Was he an authority? No. TJ can offer insight. He is not an authority.

You don't really offer anything here to defend your premise in this round, which is that Humanism is better than feminism. Thinking about that now, it is not really a specific resolution. Are we arguing whether or not humanism has better ideas for humans than feminism, or that humanism is more effective than feminism?

You didn't say anything about new arguments in the fourth round, so let me launch into why the debate is itself a logical fallacy. It is called a false dilemma. It suggests one cannot be both a humanist and a feminist, and supports an either/or but not an and/both choice. The point of feminism to combat misogyny and promote equality of the genders. You mention somewhere (it's late and I don't want to find an exact quote) but you imply that being a humanist would solve these issues because humanism promotes well being of both genders. Actually, humanism promotes the well beings of humans in general. Feminism addresses a different but just as deadly foe to humanity that humanism does; humanism addresses well being, feminism addresses inequality. Men's rights activism is a backlash against equality, it is a backlash against feminism. Because these men aren't trying to fix the issues, they are trying to defend their privilege. Sure, there are legitimate issues they can bring up. But who is hurt more, the person hit by the recoil, or the person hit by the bullet? Besides, you aren't supposed to be defending MRAs (which I assume if you are against a "one sided and *heavy sarcasm* sexist movement like feminism, surely you'd be against the response to that), you should be defending humanism.

So let's talk about humanism. Here's an excerpt from an article about its origins. "But humanism’s foundations were lain during the European Enlightenment, which attempted to remake the humans of the New World (and the Old) in the image of its own “enlightened” crusaders: privileged white European men. Contemporary humanism is touted as the “outcome of a long tradition of free thought,” but this grand tradition is not free from bias. As Judith Butler explains, humanism “supposes that there is just one single idea of what it is to be human.” Humanism turns away from difference and diversity. Equality in humanist terms means equal our way.[2]" Maybe that whole making the exception the rule argument is looking more valid, right?

Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
Okay? I think we've done enough arguing in the actual debate so bye
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 2 years ago
Hm, interesting. May I reccomend debating classes in your future. Never hurts to improve.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
Its not questioning feminism, it was saying that feminists were lucky to have a grounds in politics. Thats why I got upset. I was also in a debate with a frustrating user.

I dont need debating tips from someone who tries to justify MRAs.
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 2 years ago
If questioning feminism is insulting to you, that is fine, I suppose. But that doesn't mean I don't have the right to talk about it, no matter how much you disagree with me. It is simple debate etiquette. And what message? I don't know, was there deep-seeded a message in it?
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
Good. My arguments were meant to be crude as I found your arguments insulting, even if you didn't intend them that way.

What message did you think I was trying to send by cursing you out?
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 2 years ago
Also, in future debates my opponent, I reccomend better conduct and respect to your opponent. Your arguments come off as crude if you don't.
Posted by philosurfer 2 years ago
This is a good topic, I like it.. I wonder if feminist ruin their cause on some level.. Like getting over racism.. etc
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 2 years ago
You're in luck, Elliep310! I covered that in my round.
Posted by elliep310 2 years ago
If you don't mind, I would lie to point out and agree with YaHey that feminism includes rights for men and other genders as well. "Feminist" literally defines as someone for the equality of genders.
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 2 years ago
Ah, but alas, I have facts that I don't think you are taking into consideration that prove the opposite. Tell me good sir or madame, you seem confident in yourself. See that accept debate button above this comment section? Go on, click it. We'll have a proper debate, aye?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by WLCJWC 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had overall better S&G. Pro had better conduct as Con was sarcastic. The arguments and sources go to Pro, Con never refuted his basic contentions