The Instigator
Adam2isback
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WillRiley
Con (against)
Winning
57 Points

Oveprotective (not to be confused with strict) fathers (regards to daughters) are wimps

Do you like this debate?NoYes-10
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 11 votes the winner is...
WillRiley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,265 times Debate No: 66025
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (113)
Votes (11)

 

Adam2isback

Pro

I will argue that most overprotective daughters are spineless wimps, who are influenced by feminism, or are bisexuals. These kinda fathers hate the idea of a young man reproducing with their daughters. They've actually said it.
Most of these men are manginas in reality. I mean what do they want these boys to do? Not procreate at all? Most of these types justify it by saying, "I was once a boy, so I'm just protecting my daughter from boys."
There is a line between a father who disapproves of his daughter partaking in premaritial sex, because it's immoral, as opposed to some overprotective wimp who will kill another man just for being next to his daughter.
WillRiley

Con

wimp
informal
noun
a weak and cowardly or unadventurous person.

I will be arguing that Fathers who are overprotective of their daughters are not "Wimps", "Manginas" (Not a word), "Bisexuals" or "Spineless".
There are few cases of this-
"some overprotective wimp who will kill another man just for being next to his daughter"
In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find any case matching that description and if you did, I doubt anyone except you would describe it as "wimpy".
Also, feminism advocates that women can stand up for them selves, but you apparently believe that feminism advocates that men prevent their children from reproducing. Wouldn't that be oppression of women by men? And wouldn't this be directly at odds with feminist doctrine.
Debate Round No. 1
Adam2isback

Pro

I will be arguing that Fathers who are overprotective of their daughters are not "Wimps", "Manginas" (Not a word), "Bisexuals" or "Spineless".
"Mangina" is a word.
http://onlineslangdictionary.com...
A mangina is a man who will side with feminists and man-haters, and is ashamed of his masculinity. He will talk about how other men are horrible, much like feminists do.

There are few cases of this-
"some overprotective wimp who will kill another man just for being next to his daughter"
In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find any case matching that description and if you did, I doubt anyone except you would describe it as "wimpy".





None of these videos have the category "comedy" or "entertainment" on them so this is pretty serious.
They're not true men who want the best for their daughters and want to set rules. These are guys who are just looking to kill other men.

Also, feminism advocates that women can stand up for them selves, but you apparently believe that feminism advocates that men prevent their children from reproducing. Wouldn't that be oppression of women by men? And wouldn't this be directly at odds with feminist doctrine.
Actually it wouldn't. Isn't the one thing that feminists call rape sex? Most major feminists do that.
;
While the nature of this video is meant to be satirical, the video clips are real. Feminists do these things.

Now, for these wimpy fathers, yes, pre-maritial sex is indeed immoral. I 100% agree. However, that's what loving punishments are for. You don't threaten your daughter's boyfriend with violence. Do you ever hear of fathers doing that to their son's girlfriends? No, you don't. If my son breaks the rule of premaritial sex, you can bet I'm going to punish him, severely. However, I will not let some mangina punk touch my son. I mean, aside from breaking a rule, what did this young man do to hurt the young lady? The only thing he's guilty of is breaking my rules and having a good time with her. No young man should have to go through this nonsense. This is feminist garbage.

Likewise, a good father punishes the daughter who did this, not the boyfriend who had a good time. There's no reason to hate him, because he didn't do anything bad. The only thing he did was have a good time. It's not a crime. It's not a moral thing, but he didn't harm the girl.

So no, I absolutely believe these types are wimps. A real man would not partake in this behavior. I understand being jealous of your wife. That's different. But your daughter?
WillRiley

Con

Problem is, your entire argument is based off of your own opinion. If you begin to present some actual facts, you might change some minds. However, you have no factual evidence. Also, the videos which you posted are hardly evidence. If you watch them, most of them are clearly intended to be humorous, or at least the titles are.
As I am sure all of the voters know, http://onlineslangdictionary.com... (or Urban Dictionary, ect) are not valid sources for words. Actual words will be in dictionaries that are recognized normally, such as Miriam-Webster or Oxford Dictionary of English, neither of which contain the word "Mangina"

You attempt to refute my talking about it being hard to find a case where someone killed another man just for being next to his daughter. Obviously, I was correct, as your response was a bunch of irrelevant videos.

Apparently, my opponent believes that feminists advocate women being told what to do by men. Voters, I know you are all smart enough to know that is not the case.

Back to you Adam.
Debate Round No. 2
Adam2isback

Pro

Problem is, your entire argument is based off of your own opinion. If you begin to present some actual facts, you might change some minds. However, you have no factual evidence. Also, the videos which you posted are hardly evidence. If you watch them, most of them are clearly intended to be humorous, or at least the titles are.
Actually unless they say "comedy" or "entertainment," they're clearly not meant to be funny. The first video though was a mistake. It was clearly for an entertainment purpose, being it's tagged with entertainment.

As I am sure all of the voters know, http://onlineslangdictionary.com...;(or Urban Dictionary, ect) are not valid sources for words. Actual words will be in dictionaries that are recognized normally, such as Miriam-Webster or Oxford Dictionary of English, neither of which contain the word "Mangina"
You attempt to refute my talking about it being hard to find a case where someone killed another man just for being next to his daughter. Obviously, I was correct, as your response was a bunch of irrelevant videos.
I apologize for not having given this earlier. These are all cases where this has happened:
http://www.nbcnews.com...
http://www.cbsnews.com...

(go to 14:28 in the vid)
http://scaredmonkeys.com...
http://www.nydailynews.com...
All of these are overprotective wimps committing these crimes.

Apparently, my opponent believes that feminists advocate women being told what to do by men. Voters, I know you are all smart enough to know that is not the case.
http://www.avoiceformen.com...
While "manginas" are one name for them, "white knights" are another. These are feminists who will defend women, even if they're man-hating.
As for your remarks saying that feminism makes women follow man's commands, that's never what I said. It's not the whole story. The case of fathers not wanting their daughters to procreate is not a case of women wanting to date other men. These fathers bow down to their wives and take all forms of nonsense from them. All of the cases of overprotective fathers of this magnitude come with wives who are strongly feminist.
If it weren't for feminism we wouldn't hear of this.

I have already proven that overprotective fathers (who are not be confused with good fathers wanting to lay down rules for their daughter) are wimps.
WillRiley

Con

"some overprotective wimp who will kill another man just for being next to his daughter"
"These are all cases where this has happened"
Voters, I encourage you all to read the articles that Adam posted. Can you tell me if anyone of them fits the aforementioned scenario?
Also, I am not sure about the case in Germany, but in the United States, anyone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty, so its hardly fair to say that all of these people did the things they were accused of.
If the fathers were Feminists, they would let their daughters have free will over their lives, not be influenced by their father's old-fashioned views.
Also, I would like for you to consider this scenario. A girl invites her boyfriend to her house to meet her father. The father stands up and shoot him in the face with a shotgun. Now, would you, and anyone who you have ever heard of in your entire life consider this to be wimpy. Are people who just straight up murder people whenever they want wimpy?
I would like you to consider reading some of the following pages about feminism. Do ANY of the beliefs listed on these pages equate with what Adam is saying?
You also never explained how a overprotective father would be a bisexual. I fail to understand what logic lead you to this.
I ask that the voters take note of Adam's conduct in both the debate and in the comments section.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.feminist.com...
http://www.feminist.org...
Debate Round No. 3
113 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
Wow really? Overly protective fathers are not wimps but they are protecting their daughters from the creeps in this world.
Posted by z1 2 years ago
z1
Well said. And this is quite an odd debate lol.
Posted by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
Now that Adam2isback's account is closed, will it be Adam2isbackisback, or like Adam3, or like Adam2hasReturned?
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
I came here to see Wylted and Adam2isback and I am actually glad I did. Wylted, you never fail to make me laugh.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Clearly, Pro doesn't have a child of their own. Pro probably created this debate to rant about a father that refused him when he tried to date the daughter, then dreamed about kicking the father's butt, but instead, created this debate and congratulated himself on his non-manginaness.
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
Adam's rhetoric is so similar to what feminist tend to criticize that I get the feeling that he is in fact a feminist, trying to garner sympathy for his cause by creating a troll which he (or she) can then single out and generalize the whole society with. But thats just a hunch.
Posted by Siladheil 2 years ago
Siladheil
Who did you agree with before the debate? Wylted
Who did you agree with after the debate? Wylted
Who had better conduct? Wylted
Who had better spelling and grammar? Wylted
Who made more convincing arguments? Wylted
Who used the most reliable sources? Tied

Reasons for your voting decision - Required

Wylted ran mental circles around Adam2isback. Not only was he the more funny of the two, but used insults other than "you're a bigot," and "I'm going to beat your a--." Wylted easily whipped Adam2isback on all points but sources, as neither side posted sources. Well done Wylted. Adam2isback. I suggest you read other debates before debating in the future.
Posted by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
You have got to wonder if you had a hand in it when you front page wreck someone and next thing you know their account is closed.
Posted by z1 2 years ago
z1
Poor poor Adam, his account is closed.
Posted by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
Sadolite, think you could vote? I'm interested to see who you would vote for ;)
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SamStevens 2 years ago
SamStevens
Adam2isbackWillRileyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall, Con had the better arguments and rebuttals.
Vote Placed by z1 2 years ago
z1
Adam2isbackWillRileyTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Kind of confused lol. All together though, I think con did better.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
Adam2isbackWillRileyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Really Pro there as been overprotective fathers for thousands of year but it all the fault of feminism. Pro you make a weak outlandish argument and then don't even really back it up
Vote Placed by AtheistPerson 2 years ago
AtheistPerson
Adam2isbackWillRileyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Adam2isback just lost it.
Vote Placed by carriead20 2 years ago
carriead20
Adam2isbackWillRileyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con easily refutes all arguments made by pro. Con also had better sources and made better arguments that weren't refuted very well.
Vote Placed by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
Adam2isbackWillRileyTied
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 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: Pro didn't really cover his BoP, so con get's my vote.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Adam2isbackWillRileyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro merely uses opinion, not true evidence, to support his BoP.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 2 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
Adam2isbackWillRileyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provides no empirical evidence for his claims that "overprotective fathers" on a large scale, are "manginess".
Vote Placed by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
Adam2isbackWillRileyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons entire argument is based solely on severe confirmation bias and opinion.
Vote Placed by JackFritschy 2 years ago
JackFritschy
Adam2isbackWillRileyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument made almost no sense and he cited videos that were either irrelevant, humorous, or showed men unlike the ones he mentioned.