The Instigator
DucoNihilum
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
holyyakker
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Men should not be expected to put the toilet seat down for women.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
holyyakker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 21,051 times Debate No: 5375
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

DucoNihilum

Pro

* Expected= That men should do it otherwise of their own will/want. EG, a girl getting angry at a guy for not putting the toilet seat down.

Men and women have near the same issues with toilet seats, so women should not expect men to put the seat 'down' for them. Men can do so out of courteously, however, it should not necessarily be required.
holyyakker

Con

There are several different arguments one could use to justify placing the toilet seat and lid in the closed position. For the purposes of my argument, I will combine the seat and lid into one entity – as it is impossibly to put down the lid without lowering the seat.

The rational argument:
There are several reasons that men should leave the toilet seat down in a shared bathroom. Toilets can often be unsanitary and even a properly flushed toilet can emit an odor. Closing the toilet seat reduces this odor and makes the area near the toilet more pleasant for everyone. Several items are often stored near the toilet in a residential home, books, soap, decorative items, and the like. The chance of these falling into an open toilet increases dramatically if people leave the seat and lid up. I have outlined two practical and realistic reasons that we should leave the toilet lid down.

The courtesy argument:
Often in polite society, it is required that members perform an action that is not in their best interests, but which we consider common courtesy. Such situations can include gestures as simple as holding the door for someone else, assisting someone who is over burdened in carrying some items, or asking polite questions about ones family and general health. While several of these ideas are throwbacks to the antiquated notion of chivalry the are no less part of our societal make up. Leaving the toilet seat down is just another simple act of friendship and courtesy. When it takes little effort and causes little inconvenience to please others then we should make the effort to do so.

My opponent already admits that leaving the seat up is courteous. His contention then is that people should not expect courtesy, at least in this case. Why should we not expect others to act in a polite and courteous manner? I believe it is reasonable to expect that people conduct themselves in a courteous manner and that such behavior should be expected by society.

The efficiency argument:
"Men need it up, women need it down." This is the argument that is often made in defense of not closing the toilet lid. However, this is a misrepresentation of the truth. Men need it down to complete a bowel movement and up for a bladder movement, women need it down for both. Therefore, only one fourth of the time does the toilet seat need to be up and three fourths of the time it needs to be down. Assuming that members of both genders then it are using the bathroom in question with equal frequency is overall far more efficient to close the seat every time.
Debate Round No. 1
DucoNihilum

Pro

Thanks for accepting this debate.

I am forced to point out that at lest one of your main three arguments is completely irrational and wrong. Ironically enough, this is your 'rational' argument. In your "Rational" argument you confuse the toilet seat with the toilet lid. A toilet seat is a simple seat, whereas a toilet lid is something which might protect the surrounding area from odors, or things falling into the toilet. The toilet seat, as it is a simple seat that goes along the rim of the toilet will not in any meaningful way prevent anything from falling in it (At least not toiletries) , and it will not prevent odor.

It is unfair to suggest that men are subordinate to women. If a man does not wish to leave his own toilet seat down for the possibility of a woman, he should not have to do so. While Chivalry might be a nice thing for men to do, it should not be absolutely expected of them, especially in this modern society where women are gaining strides in equality with men daily. When Chivalry is expected, it looses it's meaning. Chivalry is a nice thing for people to do, and for it to be nice they must do so on their own free will. When it is expected, and women get mad if it is not executed to her standards, as if she were entitled to be treated superior to her male counterparts, it is no longer a nice thing and it looses it's meaning entirely.

Would it not be more efficient for each gender to simply leave the seat as they just left it? This way the efficiency is more individualistic rather than collectivist. Men do not have to go through any unnecessary steps to please the opposite gender, and nor do women. Each individual person should be responsible for what they would like to do. While it may be more efficient for OTHER PEOPLE to cater to them, this is not necessary in most other parts of society. If you are sharing a place with non children, men are not expected to put toothpaste on the toothbrush for women, even though it might be more efficient for them if they were to do so. This still holds true even if the particular woman happens to brush her teeth far more than the man. Efficiency, at least in this regard, is an individual concern- it should be this way and stay this way.
holyyakker

Con

The initial argument stated by my opponent is that men should not be expected to close the toilet seat. We could argue what consists of the seat and lid and whether those are separate or one in the same that would be bickering of semantics and not productive. However, my initial argument was to illustrate that in a wide range of scenarios men should be expected to close the lid of the toilet. Since one cannot close the lid without closing the seat then they are expected to close to seat and for the arguments made in my first argument, which my opponent admitted were valid. It would be similar to stating that people should be expected to use their blinkers in automobiles because they should be expected to drive safely. You could use your blinkers without driving safely, but in order to drive safely you are required to use your blinkers. Hence, if you are willing to accept the argument that men should be expected to close the lid to the toilet then you are accepting that in a wide case of scenarios men should be expected to lower the seat.

My opponent also suggested that lowering the seat in some way makes men subordinate to women. He, however, offers no arguments to show how this action would imply subservience. Merely engaging in an act of courtesy does not make one subservient. In fact through history women have been considered subservient to men but have been expected to perform societal courtesies such as rising when a woman enters the room, pulling a chair out for a lady, and opening a door for a lady. These simple acts do not create subservience even though they are expected in polite society. Additionally while systematically lowering the seat will benefit women all the time it will also benefit women the majority of the time.

Finally before I delve further into the efficiency issue I was actually reviewing some statistics problems and realize that my original argument was incorrect. I suggested that three out of four times in a mixed gender environment the seat will need to be down and even in an all male environment it will need to be down one out of two times. This is incorrect. For each party using the bathroom there are three options, Bowel Movement, Urinary movement, or both. Therefore 5 out of 6 times the toilet seat will be lowered and even in a male only environment the statistics rise to 2 out of 3 times. So this shows that even in a single gender environment it is far more efficient for everybody to leave the seat down. A single person using the bathroom would still benefit from leaving the seat down every time, regardless of gender.

My opponent doesn't seem to quite understand the nature of my efficiency argument though. It is not more efficient because on person is doing someone else's work, as suggested by the toothpaste example. It is more efficient because there is a great likelihood that the seat will remain down several times in a row, not to be moved again until another male makes a urinary movement. The toothpaste example, by comparison, will only benefit one person, the next person to brush their teeth. As illustrated above if someone were to put the seat down it would not just benefit the next person, but likely several other people beyond them. In fact, as illustrated above, it would be most likely to benefit them if they were the next person to use the restroom. So not only is it beneficial to the group as a whole, but it is a benefit to the individual.

So, if lowering the seat benefits even males the majority of the time there is no reason not to do it. The only argument against it would be out of spite, since the seat up is never a benefit to women. It is interesting to find that one could more logically claim that leaving the seat up is not in some way subservience to women, since it does benefit men as well, but it is rather an attack against women.
Debate Round No. 2
DucoNihilum

Pro

DucoNihilum forfeited this round.
holyyakker

Con

As my opponent forfeited the last round I won't make any new arguments here. However, I did want to elaborate on one of my opponents contentions, and that is that lowering the seat should not be expected because it makes men subservient to women. This argument has no foundation in logic as stated by my opponent. I am unclear how this action implies subservience in any way. I hope that in his next post my opponent is able to better establish the foundation for this claim.
Debate Round No. 3
DucoNihilum

Pro

DucoNihilum forfeited this round.
holyyakker

Con

It appears that my opponent has vanished into the wind. I hope that he is well but I will attempt to close up this debate with a final thought. This debate ultimately is about how people should behave in a civil society. While there is little tangible benefit to the current bathroom user in closing the seat there is definite benefit to almost anyone who comes after him. In many ways this makes lower the seat a selfless act that we undertake for the benefit of an unknown party. It could be a coworker who benefits from your courtesy, it could be a stranger, it could be someone you dislike, but by lowering the seat you have made their lives (more often than not) easier. I believe that in our society we should strive to do this whenever we can, not because of some high moral principle, but merely because it is the right thing to do. I would rather live in a society where people make small gestures of kindness towards others than a society where everyone only looks out for their best interests, even when the cost of helping out someone else are trivial, such as the time it takes to lower the toilet seat.

If you believe that is the type of society we should strive to live in please vote Con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Namuh 2 years ago
Namuh
The responsibility of the toilet is completely on the individual and no one else. The only reason I can think to gone beyond this is if someone was physically disabled.
Posted by HollywoodQueenB 3 years ago
HollywoodQueenB
Seems not many responses with women involved and only those of a typical selfish male. First off it's known that the male doesn't even keep the restroom clean like they should. And if they do they stop cleaning it when a woman is around expecting her to keep it clean. Point is you think we like having to clean up all the pee stains men leave on the toilette seat and floor. That is far from the truth. As far as I'm concerned if the woman has to spend her time cleaning up after a mans mess at least he can do is put the seat down. In all fairness. If not you should clean up tor own nasty mess you leave behind. None should have to go to the restroom and see a nasty toilette because the man wants to leave the seat up giving a full view of the mess they leave behind. Show some Respect and Consideration for others. Also if you go to a Romans place you should respect her home so put the seat down. Real men are are aware of this ignorant selfish boys are not. So stop being a boy and grow up being a man. Show some consideration and respect and put the seat down.
Posted by edgeofblade 4 years ago
edgeofblade
Gentlemen, let me make this VERY clear. If your woman makes a big deal about this, it shows where her priorities are. It's time to move on. There are women out there who aren't psychotic control freaks and can and do manage their own personal porcelain appliance configuration. They are not dolts, and therefore worth your time.
Posted by pisces2stepper 4 years ago
pisces2stepper
Why is it Women expect to never touch the toilet seat and men have to touch it twice. Look if I am not in your home, I owe you nothing. If I have to put up the seat, I did my part. It is all about being aware of your surroundings women. Just like it should be illgeal to put you make up on in traffic. It is dangerous. No one owes anyone anything in this worl. Get off your crosses, someone else needs the wood.
Posted by holyyakker 8 years ago
holyyakker
WTB Voters.
Posted by Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
Good!!!
Posted by holyyakker 8 years ago
holyyakker
I prefer to leave my debating to the actual rounds of debate rather to than the comments. In response to what PoeJoe said: I simplified my efficiency argument in its initial presentation - if needed I will later elaborate to address your specific points.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
It may be an incorrect assumption, but the experience indicates women go to the bathroom more frequently, so that helps Con's case. People performing both actions need it down, so, that too helps Con's case. Only 2 hurts his case, but it still keeps the ratio for times it should be down at above 50%. Con was simply being generous with his assumptions.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
* 1) People never go to the bathroom to BOTH pee and people at the same event.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
CON makes many incorrect assumptions in his efficiency argument in his R1.

1) People never go to the bathroom to BOTH pee or people at the same event.
2) People pee as much as they poop.
3) The pee/poop ratio for men an women are the same.
4) There are exactly the same amount of men and women who pee and poop.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
DucoNihilumholyyakkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by holyyakker 8 years ago
holyyakker
DucoNihilumholyyakkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07