Men are superior to women, but women are more essential than men.
Debate Rounds (5)
There is a concrete rule for this debate.
If you don't agree with it, don't bother commenting because I will not alter it.
The rule is that this debate should be purely based on the premise that the theory of evolution is true, that it requires no further scientific proof and that all we know of men and women is sufficiently derived from theoretical analysis of social structures of both apes and past human civilisations. Do not argue evolution, do not ask me for proof.
There is no scientific burden of proof. This is purely theoretical and shall be purely based on logic.
There is a less concrete rule but one I hope you abide by.
Raising extremes of either gender to counter generalisations should not be your grounds for debate. For example, the theory that men are physically stronger should not be constantly countered for no reason at all.
I would like to now propose the outline of my case, round one for con is not just acceptance it is outlining their case.
By outlining the case I mean very basic, short and sharp, point-by-point outline. No elaboration of points, NO REBUTTALS OF MY POINTS IN ROUND 1.
In my round 2 debate I shall begin to fully explain my ideas.
NO REBUTTALS OF MY POINTS IN ROUND 2.
In round 3, I want pure rebuttals. No new points.
In round 4, I want counter-rebuttals.
In round 5, I want a conclusion.
The reason I have set such a rigid and strict structure for the debate is that debates on the topic of sexism and racism often end up with a huge vote for con due to the con rebutting any and all points with 'scientific proof' or exceptions to any rule and generalisation. Additionally they do this before the pro can even begin to explain their points and hence the pro is constantly on the defence never getting a fair chance to propose the idea.
Any deviation from the rules will result in a 7 point forfeit.
The outline of my case is as follows:
I would preferably like a feminist to take this debate (whether female or male), as opposed to a chauvinist who has an issue with my second half of the resolution. The reason is, that if you abide by my rule of accepting evolution, you simply cannot deny how essential women are to any species' (especially mammal's) survival in both the reproductive stage and raising of the child itself.
I accept the challenge, and I look forward to debating with you.
As per the guidelines set by my opponent, here is an outline of my case:
I am interested to see my opponent's ideas on the topic.
Firstly, men are stronger than women. Don't question this or deny it, it is a fact. Sure you can show me extremes of both weak men and strong women, in fact I bet a fair share of sportswomen are stronger than myself, nonetheless if you take all men and all women and took away the emotional resistance to violence from their minds, I think it's clear that men would win by an astoundingly one-sided victory. This is obviously a way in which they are superior to inferior weak women. I don't really see how you can refute this point.
This of any successful individual in a theoretical field of study. Oh wow, you thought of a man. Women have appeared extremely fundamental in certain theoretical fields (such as Jane Goodall, Temple Grandin and Marie Curie) but these were all fields of study whereby knowledge was drawn purely from experimentation and observation, very little abstract thinking was required. This is because women are intellectually inferior to men in theoretical fields, I would assume you would reach the same conclusion. IF you observe any corporation the thinkers are almost always at the top and the doers at the bottom. If you take a high strung CEO male and female you will usually find the female finds her job stressful, and isn't built to take on such a heavily mental job. She needs more resting for the brain than a man does, just face it.
A guy, on his own, could fend pretty well. He just needs to build his own strength and he could beat up a few guys (look at Rambo). Now you probably would take Catwoman as your counter but let me explain the fundamental difference between a lone woman and a lone man. A lone woman is forever craving a guardian, a protector. Rambo does meet women and might indeed choose to have sex with them but he is the one overpowering them, not the reverse. Catwoman ultimately wants a very powerful man to use and abuse her (shown in Batman: The Dark Knight Rises) she craves a male figure so much so that she risked being trapped in a doomed town about to blow up just to be with him. Rambo never gives up his dream nor mission in life for a woman, he merely enjoys the many women along the way. Face it, women need 'a man' whilst men only need 'women'. Women will get too attached or crave being attached to last long alone in a sane manner.
Well the reproductive system of women is of course obvious. A country with 300 women to one man will grow rapidly if the men cheat successfully. However the men are still the superior gender even in this scenario (females will probably compete to be his personal slave just so that he raises her child with the most care). A country with 300 men to one woman has a huge dilemma. The men would either kill each other until one remains or even if they all shared her (which is highly unlikely due to testosterone increasing aggression) she could only have one baby. The woman's body is more essential.
Men are better slave drivers and women are better slaves. They know their place if pushed to it, don't deny it why do you think only 1% of rapes are female to male? Because against a man they are pathetic.
Bullying between men is truly horrific but women bully far more impulsively with female rapes in prison often completely destroying women's vaginas by use of broom sticks and what not. Men usually only rape for fun and leave their victim intact to heal for the next round. Men plan ahead and are better abusers, women are rather idiotic when they do it and are insane.
Single mothers multitask better than men but are very stressful. They know their place and want a man to overpower and lead them, they are so lost without one and having to take the role of a man is tiring. Single fathers lack the moral support, the sex and the household chores being done. However they are ultimately better at coping with the role.
I have met many women in my life, and have a sister and mother (and father). I want you to know that my opinion isn't based on being raised around sexist pigs. It is based around genuine understanding and observation of women. They crave domination and leadership, they are built to be enslaved, in fact feminism usually works BECAUSE they love being lead astray by a very masculine, butch woman who has a no-nonsense attitude to life (almost as if they were following a man) you would find most militant feminist groups are led by lesbians with a very male mentality, the women in it enjoy this leadership and ironically fight oppression due to the craving of belonging to an oppressed and brainwashed group. Men are not like this.
I DO NOT ADVOCATE SLAVERY OF WOMEN, I advocate them accepting men are superior. That is all.
xafuschia forfeited this round.
Well I guess that proves it.
Time to remake this debate with someone decent.
xafuschia forfeited this round.
OH darling stop acting so FEMININE ;) :P
I'm back. I've recovered from how sick your "logic" and "genuine understanding and observation of women" made me. That said, I still don't understand how you would have a better understanding of women than me-or your twisted definition of "logic." I believe, when you said this debate would be "purely based on logic," you meant to say "purely based on stereotypes and generalizations"?
I can do that too!
Men are insensitive. Men are immature. Men are more violent. Men only care about sex, sports and food. Men are slobs. Men are misogynistic (see my opponent for Exhibit A). See? Two can play this game.
Oh, wait, it wasn't JUST gender stereotypes, was it? It's also stereotypes of feminists! Really, what is a "male mentality"?
You almost killed me when you talked about how men make "better abusers". Yes, because abusing people is a VERY VALUABLE SKILL TO HAVE. It's not like it's unethical or inhumane or something that the world could very easily do without, right?
You also act as if wanting to love and be loved back is a purely feminine phenomenon, and it makes someone "inferior". In fact, you don't show any particular way that your examples actually make women inferior. Being more abusive, in my opinion, makes someone inferior. It seems that only weak people have feelings, correct?
And by the way, even if you weren't raised by sexist pigs, you still are one.
RationalMadman forfeited this round.
xafuschia forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.