The Instigator
MrBurns2017
Pro (for)
The Contender
Emilrose
Con (against)

If the world was run by women, our civilization would reach stagnation.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Emilrose has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 473 times Debate No: 103775
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

MrBurns2017

Pro

I know the title sounds as if the debater is a troll, but I am not. If you look at my profile and my debates, you will see that I am a serious debater.

I will start with my educational background and resources.

My Background:
A-Level psychology
Business management bsc
Various popular psychology books
33 years of life Experience

Most of my resources rely on:
The Female Brain by Louann Brizendine
Psychology for A2 Level by Michael W. Eysenck, Cara Flanagan
Gender differences documentaries

I want the debater to post a similar post, describing himself and the resources that he will use. It is a 5 round debate and Max character per post, so I would invest more time if the debater is good or is serious to challenge me.
Emilrose

Con

Regards,

As Pro has requested an overview of background here, I will list my basic academic achievements and current educational status; my A-levels are in Biology, Chemistry, English, Maths and Sociology--and I am currently a medical student. I used to have a keen interest in politics but this has lessened somewhat; these days I mostly just follow news on healthcare, education and science.

Anyway, as Con I will be arguing against the resolution: if the world was run by women, our civilization would reach stagnation. I will use various medical, psychological and sociological sources for my case. Given that this debate is five rounds, I figured that it would be best to use this round for acceptance/overview and then proceed to opening arguments, rebuttals, and closing arguments respectively, so as to maintain some structure.
Debate Round No. 1
MrBurns2017

Pro

Okay, first of all, I accept the fact that women can be good leaders. History has shown that female leaders can politically and militarily lead and lead well such as Margret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia, Elizabeth and Joan of Arc.

However, as you can see, historically, there were few of them, and this could lead to slow progress in civilization, that could almost lead to stagnation. I will try explain why there are so few of them in leading roles and what prevents them from competing well with men or competing in general.

Life is about the survival of the fittest. Any environment will always consist scarce resources which would encourage competition. Men have three things that women lack. One is testosterone, second is higher comfort in taking risky decisions and third is strategic planning. All that is supported by research, men have higher testosterone than women (1:20 ratio of difference if I remember right). Studies showed that women are risk averse, they would only make a decision if they are somewhere around 90% sure they are right. That can be problematic in decisions that require high risk. About strategic planning, men are better at spatial perception, which means seeing a better overview of what is happening instead of focusing on the small things. Thats partially why there are more men who are pilots and military generals than women.

Another point, but which is more marginal, is group cohesion. It is true that a society that is lead by men is more likely to start wars, and because of that lose resources. But if a war is calculated and timed right, it can greatly benefit a society. Look at countries like Israel and America who rose out of war, including many empires like the Roman empire. Anyone who played strategic games like Civilization or one of paradox games titles, knows that there is a point in the game when it is simply profitable to conquer the other civilization ;)
If the whole world is civilized and the international economics are clearly perceived, there may be no need to start wars. In that case, diplomacy may actually benefit female leaders.. but it is still unclear about how they would go about different policies to protect them militarily and keep potential invaders at bay.

But lets assume that women can group themselves and choose a leader and be bad at planning but good at competing relative to other groups. But still because of the physiological differences between men and women the growth is expected to be lower than if the world had men in them. If economies in the world would have been run by women, they would shrink. Simply because women can do fewer things than a man can. That can also involve jobs that require physical strength such as construction.

If we dont speculate on basis of psychological differences that exist between the genders, but look at the state of things today, you will see, how everything may very well reach stagnation. What assisted making todays modern female leaders great has been education. Higher education and education which is scientific. Scientific education such as engineering, physics and chemistry have shown to close the gap between the gender differences that existed between men and women according to a BBC study. Thatcher and Merkel had both Phds in Chemical engineering. However, if you look at any math related scientific department at any university across the world, you would see that there are very few women inside. I dont know why women dont pursue more math related degrees.. But without advances in maths, chemistry, physics and enginnering the world would plummet to a stagnation in scientific progress. If men were to disappear today, would women be able replace men as scientists? history has shown that there were very few female scientists who lead to breakthroughs. And after all, till this point men have proven until this point in time to be the best gender in science and engineering.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by DrCereal 4 months ago
DrCereal
You can extrapolate whatever you like from her failing to respond to the debate.
I was simply stating that this example is anecdotal and ergo fails to affirm the resolution.
Posted by MrBurns2017 4 months ago
MrBurns2017
It shows lack of planning, which is typical for a woman.

Lack of planning in the real world leads to more severe consequences such as pregnancy.
Posted by DrCereal 4 months ago
DrCereal
@MrBurns2017
This is an anecdotal example. Her failing to respond to the debate does not affirm the resolution.
Posted by Emilrose 4 months ago
Emilrose
Lol...sorry, but I was busy.
Posted by MrBurns2017 4 months ago
MrBurns2017
Useless woman!
She just threw the towel.
There is no irony that she didnt answer back!
That just proves my pro argument, so there is no need to go to the next round.
Posted by Bill_Henly 4 months ago
Bill_Henly
I guess this is why you are still single. We are all slaves to women!
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.