The Instigator
Zakryl
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Romanii
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Is man more dominant than woman?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,152 times Debate No: 47916
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Zakryl

Pro

In answer to the question raised in the topic, my stance is YES - man is indeed more dominant than woman. Facts derived from different fields including biology, psychology, neuroscience and others, it is clear that man has always had an upper hand over woman. This conclusion is made on a generalized basis, considering into account the areas of physical, mental, emotional and social perspectives. Rationale fields apart, every major religion and faith of the world also supports the same either directly or indirectly.
Further discussion regarding the same shall be made after responses.
Romanii

Con

I accept this debate.

BOP is on Pro to prove that men are dominant to women.
My job is mainly to provide rebuttals.

Thus far, all he has done is claim that science supports male dominance, but he has not cited any sources to back this up.
He also talked about some religions supporting male dominance, but this contention holds no value in our modern, secular world.

I hand the debate back over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Zakryl

Pro

Rebuttal accepted.

To start with, the first Pro comment made with regard to the debate topic required that it was necessary to only state the stance clearly in order that fellow debaters aren't led to misconception. Since I have received a response from the Con, seeking further citations "to back this up" and/or explanations for the same, I shall do so hereon.
To clarify the second comment made by the Con with regard to religion holding no value in our "modern, secular world", I wish to issue a reminder that religion has indeed formed the basic foundations of the world, if not now, to a very large extent over the past centuries. It may be noted that when I use the term "religion" in this context, it refers to any orderly form of worship, teachings or principles recognized, devised or followed by a group of people; and not merely the dictionary definition of the same. It does, however, also include the well-established meaning of "religion" as used in today's context. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, to name a few, are some of the religions that clearly support the dominance of male over female, and even justify it. To call a morally and practically acceptable view as one of "no value" does not defy or remove the value it does hold. By this I mean, unless for some genuine and valid reasons, there isn't any necessity to not accept a truth, owing merely to a fact that the world has gone modern and secular. The world becoming so does not change the truth contained in the religious view, unless proved it isn't true. Therefore, I request Con to provide ample and genuine reason/s as to why a view supported by religions should not contain facts.
Getting back to science supporting male dominance, let us first take a look at what biology has to offer in support of the view. Firstly, the physical make up of man is much stronger and larger when compared to the woman's. This includes primarily the musculature, which alone is sufficient to account for the greater physical strength in man. In addition to musculature, larger lung capacity, higher bone density, a much higher level of testosterone, rougher texture of epidermis, higher body mass and a much higher lower-body strength are some other reasons that makes man biologically stronger than woman.
Next, heading into the genetic level of biology, man is again dominant over woman. Testosterone happens to be the reason again. The increased level of testosterone in males accounts for the higher rate of protein synthesis. This in turn increases the body mass, and therefore the strength.
In terms of enduring pain, man edges past woman again. I state this being fully aware that man neither gets pregnant like women do and carry for nine months, nor does he experience birth pains. Having said that, it would be incorrect to write man off as incapable of the same for the simple reason that thus far, man hasn't been subjected to such thresholds of pain in any natural way as a woman does. Man being uncapable of experiencing such a natural phenomenon in his body, cannot be termed as incapable of the same. And the genetic make-up of man is best suited to be able to withstand extreme levels of pain and work. On the other hand, while it is true that women do undergo extreme thresholds of pain during parturation, these pain levels vary from individual to individual and instances of every woman being able to successfully bear that pain has been unheard of. Therefore, the birth pain argument ceases to be a genuine one.
I shall head into the other areas of science after the Con gives his views of the above points raised by Pro.

Debate over to the Pro.
Romanii

Con


Thanks to Pro for his argument.

DISCLAIMER: In the following, I am not at all arguing that women are superior to men; just that each gender has its own strengths and weaknesses, so neither can really be called "dominant" over the other.



RELIGION


Pro argues that since religion is a foundation of morality, it should be taken into consideration when deciding what is right or wrong. However, morality changes over time, and as such, it is best to use our modern standards of morality when deciding on such an issue. If we were to apply what was previously acceptable to modern times, we would never make any progress at all in terms of social development.



BIOLOGY

"Firstly, the physical make up of man is much stronger and larger when compared to the woman's"

This is generally true, but we must also look at the other side of the coin.
Women generally have much better joint flexibility and agility than men [1], which would even out the playing field in terms of athletic ability.

"Next, heading into the genetic level of biology, man is again dominant over woman"

Pro has tied this back into the strength advantage of men over women through protein synthesis levels.
However, there is a more important aspect to judging "genetic superiority" which Pro has dodged: genetic diseases.
Medical studies have shown that men are actually much more susceptible to most genetic/hereditary diseases due to the presence of only one X chromosome in their genomes [2].

"In terms of enduring pain, man edges past woman again. "

This point has left me confused, as Pro did not actually defend it.
Instead, he wrote an entire paragraph dealing with refuting a possible counter-argument concerning giving birth.
He did not actually provide details as to WHY men generally have a higher tolerance to pain.



CONCLUSIONS

1) We must judge issues based on modern standards of morality rather than the ancient standards of morality maintained by some religious beliefs

2) Men may have the advantage in strength and stamina, but women have the advantage in flexibility and agility

3) Men are actually more susceptible to genetic/hereditary diseases than women


Also, I'd just like to point out that thus far, Pro has not actually cited any sources to back up his points.

I eagerly await Pro's next argument.


SOURCES
[1] http://www.livestrong.com...
[2] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Zakryl

Pro

Zakryl forfeited this round.
Romanii

Con

Extend all Arguments.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
@ESocial:Thanks!
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
Excellent job Romanii
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
ZakrylRomaniiTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
ZakrylRomaniiTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF