The Instigator
SoupReamDibBayTore
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CJKAllstar
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

It is a more reasonable outlook for one to be racist than sexist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
CJKAllstar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,069 times Debate No: 52148
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

SoupReamDibBayTore

Pro

First round is for acceptance.

I wish the best of luck to my opponent.

Racist: A person who believes that a particular race is superior to another. Causing extreme prejudice and stereotyping towards that race.

Sexist: A person who believes that a particular gender is superior to another. Causing extreme prejudice and stereotyping towards that gender.

Reasonable Outlook: Based on sound judgement; fair and sensible.
CJKAllstar

Con

I accept! I hope for an enthralling debate.
Debate Round No. 1
SoupReamDibBayTore

Pro

Ladies and gentlemen, I represent the side supporting the resolution which states that 'it is a more reasonable outlook for one to be racist than sexist'. The reasons that this is correct shall become more apparent throughout the debate but I shall give you a brief overview of the foundation of my case in support of the extent to which is reasonable for one to be racist, as opposed to sexist. The most obvious one, at face value, is that no matter what culture you are from, every living entity owes half of its life to either gender, in some shape or form. The second pillar on which my case rests is that the races don't need each other whilst the genders do. Now, I shall progress onto the extensive arguments portion of debate.

The first point I shall be raising is that of the debt one owes to their parents, and thus to each gender in a society. This is regardless of how abusive one's parents were as well as whether or not one believes in 'emotional debt' or fairness of any kind. In the context I am using the phrase, 'debt' refers to what one logically owes another based on their origin. You see, by the process of meiosis[1], the gametes, each from one gender which is definitely different to the cell of the other gender, progressing to form the zygote, that is the first cell of the new human being. This new human being is thus inevitably indebted to both givers of the gametes for their very existence simply by the laws of biological science. It will not, unless it is a rare mix if all races, be existing to owe all races for its existence. Thus, there is far more hypocrisy in one discriminating against a gender, to which they owe their very existence, than to a race to which they do not necessarily owe anything.

The second point to consider is that one race of humanity could survive fairly well whilst one gender would inevitably die out in one generation. This is simply undeniable and I do not see how, or why, I would require proof of this. In essence this point is short and sweet in that it simply takes racism and sexism to the extreme that one race wipes out all others, or one gender wipes out the other one. What is left? A sustainable human race in the former scenario whilst, in the latter, the last generation of humanity is left.

In conclusion, it is firstly true to say that all human beings owe both genders for their existence but not all races, it is also true to say that racism taken to its extreme can end up with a sustainable single-raced humanity whilst there is no sustainability in the extremes of sexism.
Sources
[1] http://www.biology.arizona.edu...
CJKAllstar

Con

Members of the floor, I will be putting forward my points that, sexism is a more reasonable outlook that racism.

1. The Role of Women in Nature
The aims and goals in nature are perceived in an evolutionary stance. The goal is to reproduce and keep the species alive. The female, are the ones in the majority of cases to give birth. The females are going to carry on the species and it relies upn them. This means that the men have to be proactive. The female animal is more likely to procreate. Humans themselves, the female is more open to a variety of sexual pleasure whereas males are more pedantic[1]. The male has to find a mate and beat all other men to competition, which is why men generally have to display. Whether it is wooing, singing, showing off your feathers as a male peacock does, or fighting, the men in species have to challenge themselves and fight for their chances at spreading their seed. This in turn, in most cases creates an almost patriarchal society, where the role of the female is to give birth, take care of their children and protect them, which is very evident in large cats such as lions, where the female is the predominant hunter in familial packs. The role of women in nature becomes one of a mother in the end, whereas the males are generally mroe free to hunt, play or relax, shown again in lions as the male sleeps up to twenty hours a day[2]. In the end, especially in mammals, we see that women are mothers and males do the searching, leading and are put on a higher pedestal, and this is my point, which I will summarise later. We can then in turn, translate this to manking.

2. The Role of Women in History
Before first-wave feminism in the 19th century started from the Suffragette Movement, a women's place was decided. In the kitchen, as a housewife. Giving birth and caring for their children. Only recently has this changed, but as late as the 1960s only 28% of women worked[3]. This chart below shows women working in certain industries. But do you see the correlation between this and the animal kingdom?

We see in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 11:3 - "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God," and Genesis 3:16 - "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
We do not need to look far back in history to see that. Women only recieved suffrage in the U.K in 1928, whereas men had recieved suffrage in 1832. Only in this newly progressive society do we see equality being strived for, but for so long was the role of a woman set in stone, and was just tradition, and was not immoral. In African, to western to Asian society was the role of a woman similar to that of most mammals. And this is where my argument is leading to. Naturally and traditionally, did this happen, and once it does, it is easy to claim that men are superior. They have a reason to. Anatomically women are weaker, and in history men worked. They were more intelligent, stronger, braver, thoughtful and educated. Historically, men were made better until it reached the point where it wouldn't be too hard to fall into the illusion that men were superior. And even worse, it was accepted. People would be indoctrinated and brainwashed and forced into a seemingly patriarchal society, so could easily see that men were better. And we see the remnants of that today. We see that there are 5,100,000 stay at home mothers in America, but only 176,000m. After thousands of years having this message put, it is not easy to just obliterate it. So let us compare this to racism.

3. Role of Racism in History
Racism is the notion that a race superior to the other. A race is simply a form of classifications that humans make. "Race" is our idea, and generally this idea is formed from the slave trade. Without going into too much detail, people were viewed as less because of their skin colour. Because of their culture and unorthodox ways. Because their society was different, strange and founded on things which seems weird. Because they weren't as intelligent as they know it, and weren't as civilised. But everything here is subjective. The need for this is subjective, whereas the need for display in animals, procreation or childcare isn't. Realise at that time they weren't as knowledgeabe about them, so racist, bigoted claims that Americans make about their black people woudn't be there to make as an objective claim. All they had were subjective views, following their popular mentality about morals, and decided that black people weren't worthy. Racism in general is always bigoted and subjective, as there is no reason to hate a whole race because the only things that keeps them similar may be one small thing like skin colour. People fall too easily into stereotype, but stereotypes aren't objectively true for all. In short, there is no valid objective claim for racism, and if there is I would love to hear it.

Sexism can be naturally justified, historically justified, psychologically and anatomically justified. Male and female are more definite than race and are natural in their roles and have historical roles. Race is a human construct which can only have a cultural justification, but that is implying that all people are involved of set race in set culture, which is an absurd notion to have. Whether you can continue as a race with races but not sexes is irrelevant. Yes it is true, but women can still be looked down upon for these reasons I have gone into, for the parallel with nature and religious to animalistic justifications. Sexism makes more sense because it has always existed, all we have done is label it sexism. Animals in general live like they adhere to this, we just haven't labelled it sexist. Humans were like that, and we have only recently labelled it sexist. Racism on the other hand has no natural or objective justification thus is not more reasonable.

Sources:
[1] The Sex Reseachers, Ep. 3.
[2] http://www.omg-facts.com...
http://www.debate.org...

Debate Round No. 2
SoupReamDibBayTore

Pro

SoupReamDibBayTore forfeited this round.
CJKAllstar

Con

I hold my argument until a response from Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
SoupReamDibBayTore

Pro

SoupReamDibBayTore forfeited this round.
CJKAllstar

Con

I hold my argument until a response from Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
SoupReamDibBayTore

Pro

SoupReamDibBayTore forfeited this round.
CJKAllstar

Con

Fofeit. Please vote Con, thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SoupReamDibBayTore 3 years ago
SoupReamDibBayTore
An idea can't be immoral.
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
No, I haven't. Having an opinion in itself is fine, people wouldn't want to infringe on your right to have views. But the actual view itself can be immoral. I don't see what's so contradictory.
Posted by SoupReamDibBayTore 3 years ago
SoupReamDibBayTore
You just contradicted yourself in the same sentence.
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
Free thought is advocated. If you believe that rape is good, then people will not hate the fact that you have that notion, but the actual idea people will find immoral.
Posted by SoupReamDibBayTore 3 years ago
SoupReamDibBayTore
If free thought is advocated it is, in fact, your point that is refuted. ;)
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
Morality is a tricky ground. In the end it is subjective, but when enough people share a subjective view, it becomes the popular mentality, but it is not universal. It depends on the context and people involved. In certain cultures, my views are immoral. In certain areas, my views are immoral. Others, they aren't. It is about context and I could only assume on this case, we are looking at western society, as that is the context here. And rape is generally viewed negatively, and free thought, opinions and beliefs are advocated, so atheists wouldn't be seen as immoral. I fail to see your point.
Posted by SoupReamDibBayTore 3 years ago
SoupReamDibBayTore
Even you, mister Conservative Christian are a severely immoral individual if you ever step foot in an area where the majority are not of this perspective.

This is me being sarcastic. I hope you comprehend.
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
Why? Please explain.
Posted by SoupReamDibBayTore 3 years ago
SoupReamDibBayTore
If that were true, then all atheists are immoral.
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
Having an outlook isn't immoral. It is the subject of that outlook, which if it goes against the popular mentality, is immoral by definition.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 3 years ago
NiamC
SoupReamDibBayToreCJKAllstarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited. The argument which remained was fun to read.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
SoupReamDibBayToreCJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.