The Instigator
TheAxis
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
James.ticknor
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

That women need men like fish need bicycles

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 4 votes the winner is...
James.ticknor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,283 times Debate No: 8248
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

TheAxis

Pro

I thank anyone who accepts this topic, I would prefer it to be a female, as I am a male arguing that women don't need men, so I think it would just spice things up a bit! Though I'll take any opponent, I don't mind.

I've set four rounds and I would prefer it to be set out as the following;
1st round Pro and Con: Opening statements, introductions, etc
2nd round Pro: First set of arguments, definition etc
2nd Round Con: Rebuttal and first set of arguments
3rd Round Pro and Con: Rebuttal and second set of arguments, if need be
4th Round Pro and Con: Final rebuttals and closing statements

Of course, I'm more than willing to change some of this, but that's what I'd prefer.

Oh and it should be obvious, though Pro will be trying to prove that women really don't need men and Con will be trying to prove that women actually do need men.

I look forward to a response!
James.ticknor

Con

1st Round - (Opening statements, introduction)

Before I begin, I would like to thank my opponent for what I am sure is going to be an interesting and well-fought debate.

Observation 1 : I'm not sure which way that women do, or do not need men, because it is not stated in the resolution. Therefore, I am left to assume that this is open to anything.

Women need men because the future of the world depends on it. Our biological makeup states that clearly. We must interact and learn to live together in harmony so that we can...have intercorse and provide a legacy for the next generation to pick up on, so they can better society. Not only that, but if we do not live in harmony, it will most definately hinder scientific, medical, and any other process you can think of.

Observation: 2

1. The Affirmative has the burden of proof
2. The Negative has the burden of clash

Therefore, my opening speech should not be nessicary, so I have already solidified my case more than my oppoent, and unless he provides and introduction and clashes, (which the neg is supposed to do anyways) then I should win this case.
Debate Round No. 1
TheAxis

Pro

2nd Round (Definition, First set of arguments, etc)
I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

To begin, I would like to outline what the affirmative will be trying to prove, in more detail than what I gave in my introduction. Throughout this debate, the affirmative will try and prove that women do not need men in a biological sense, social sense (that is, in the home and in the smaller community) and global sense (that is, in terms of world issues and the global community). Should the negative feel that something has been overlooked here the affirmative will be more than happy to provide reasons why women do not need men in the situation the negative provides.

It is then, therefore the role of the negative to show why women do need men in these contexts, as well as any other situation the negative feels relevant.

The affirmative defines the topic as follows:
Women: People of the female gender in society on Earth
Men: People of the male gender in society on Earth
Fish need bicycles: Obviously they do not, as such this debate revolves around the fact women do not need men

Firstly, I would like to direct attention to the following articles:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://science.slashdot.org...

To summarise the articles, scientists have found a way to create sperm cells from bone marrow, male or female. Though the research may still take 3-5 years to be ‘perfected', it does show that, theoretically, women would not need men to not only a) get pregnant, but b) continue the human race. From this method, all children born would be female (as they would have no Y chromosome), however given that the sperm can be created from women, again, there is no need for men in this situation.

Observant people will also notice that in the second article I have included, there is information suggesting that there is a ‘high chance of birth defects'. This is only true however, for the current state of research. Further research could lead to these birth defects removed completely, or at the very least, reduced down to the normal amount in any other birth.

Furthermore, research has been placed into being able to ‘custom designing' of children through a process known as ‘Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis' or PGD. Though this is something that clearly requires discussion within another debate, it does show an interesting point. With further research, this process could also remove birth defects from the human genome, which would then solve the problem of possible birth defects coming from sperm created in bone marrow.
(Source: http://abcnews.go.com...)

Of course, it would be na�ve to only focus on biological aspects in this debate, which is why the affirmative feels it necessary to bring up social aspects. Taking a look throughout history, the role of women was traditionally confined to the home. The affirmative hopes this won't be taken the wrong way, but rather to use that information to realise this point; for over 2000 years, women have been more than capable of completing any issue or job that has been required in and around the home. It is, again, therefore unnecessary for women to have men.

Furthermore, evidence suggests that men are more likely to commit crime then women (http://www.statistics.gov.uk...). Crime is, no doubt, a major problem in the current community. Without men, this would be significantly reduced, leading to a much safer community. This in turn shows yet another reason why women do not need women.
James.ticknor

Con

These are direct excripts of my opponents articles "In most men, spermatagonial cells eventually develop into mature, functional sperm but this progression was not achieved in this experiment."

Also, my opponents article stated, "All children born of this method would be female, due the lack Y chromosomes, and there is high chance of birth defects. Eggs also can be created from male bone marrow, but men looking to reproduce would still need to find a surrogate mother to handle the gestation period." My opponents articles actually support my case. He justifies it by saying that the birth defect can be cured, yet there is no proof to follow up his theory. Also, no amount research can change the fact that all of the births would be female.

His third article futher supports my case by saying, "Many say this advancement takes it too far." I completely agree. 'Manufacturing' your own baby? That is absolutely ridicoulous. It is high time that we stop treating children like science experiments.

My opponent stated that, "Furthermore, evidence suggests that men are more likely to commit crime then women " But just read the fine print at the bottom of the screen. "Offenders as a percentage of the population: by age, 2000, England & Wales" This source is invalid, because it is outdated, and focused only on a certain area, making it biased only to support my opponents case.

If my opponent feels that any of my points are incorrect, please say so.

My opponents main arguement was the birth argument. However, this 'research' is not complete and still faulty. So as of today, women still need men. If not for the future of the world, but to build, defend, and provide. It is not that women are inferior, or supirior, but we are ALL equal.
Debate Round No. 2
TheAxis

Pro

May I begin by first apologising for leaving this just a few hours before the deadline.

First, quoting the negative;
"He justifies it by saying that the birth defect can be cured, yet there is no proof to follow up his theory. Also, no amount research can change the fact that all of the births would be female."
I begin by saying perhaps the affirmative has not been clear enough. Most of this debate will have to be theoretical, which may be suggested by the topic given its rather light hearted nature. So no, there is no proof to back up the claim the birth defect can be cured only a logical conclusion from past experience.

Further, I remind the negative that the fact all births would be female is the point. The topic is women to not need men. The research shows women can make the sperm themselves. There is, therefore, no need for men.

"'Manufacturing' your own baby? That is absolutely ridicoulous. It is high time that we stop treating children like science experiments."
I remind the negative that I said this is something wrong and that should be debated somewhere else. I am only using the point that we can target specific genomes and use them for a better purpose.

"…women still need men. If not for the future of the world, but to build, defend, and provide"
I remind the negative once more that they must prove why men are needed in situations. I will admit, finding sources on the internet to prove this may be difficult and I would ask the negative not be penalised on that basis. However, the negative still must try to prove this. Simply saying to build defend and provide is not enough. Women are more than capable of doing all of these things.

Proceeding with the affirmatives case now, we shall take a look at the world scale. We know men will always be more aggressive than women. We also know that on a global scale, the best way to prove strength is through war. It's a practice that has been around since the age of exploration. Women will usually tend to talk out emotions (even in anger) before resorting to violence. Is this a path towards a simpler world? Perhaps.

We also know that as long as there are men and women, there is going to be conflict between them in the world community. Pay, social rights, equality not under the law but in the eyes of those who hire. Without men in society these would be removed and act as the start of an even society.
James.ticknor

Con

(It's okay, I have some of those moments too.)

I will begin my argument by saying that while this topic is theoretical, it is vital that you establish facts to support it. If we are arguing theories, then we would never get anywhere and none of our claims could be proven. Thus, pointlessness. Also, while the points you presented are somewhat factual, I have pointed out it's flaws, which are factual. You also agreed that, "So no, there is no proof to back up the claim the birth defect can be cured only a logical conclusion from past experience." I must ask you to specify the 'logical conclusion from past experience', because right now I think it is the forinication of men and women.

You also said, "I remind the negative that I said this is something wrong and that should be debated somewhere else." Yet your ABCnews article stated, and I quote, ""There is no more important question that is going to face us than deciding how to control and use genetic engineering and genetic selection to design our kids. Nothing," said Art Caplan, ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania." If you don't support 'manufacturing' children, then you disagree with your proof.

"Simply saying to build defend and provide is not enough. Women are more than capable of doing all of these things." Alright, let's look at this logically. Women are capable at doing these things. But is this the desire of all women? No. Actually, you would see more men in the military (defending), construction (providing), and more stay at home moms than dads (providing). Women simply do not have the motivation for manual labor. Well, most anyways.

"We know men will always be more aggressive than women. We also know that on a global scale, the best way to prove strength is through war." That is not true. The best way to prove strength (as an individual) is not war. Even so, we don't go to war over stupid reasons. We have come a long way from the Inquisitions and Holy Wars. So it's not fair, nor justified to say that.

"We also know that as long as there are men and women, there is going to be conflict between them in the world community. Pay, social rights, equality not under the law but in the eyes of those who hire. Without men in society these would be removed and act as the start of an even society." Goodness, all of my debates say that there is conflict. YES! And there will always be conflict, between men and women! Or between women and women. But just because you are a man/woman, doesn't make the conflict. It is the different personalities, beliefs, etc. and you will still have those with women/men even if the world excluded males.

I will now rest my argumentation and allow the Affermation to speak, since I have rebutted all of his points.
Debate Round No. 3
TheAxis

Pro

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for a debate I've thoroughly enjoyed, but it isn't over yet so let's get straight into it.

The negative stated that he wanted me to point out what my logical conclusion was. My logical conclusion is that in the past we have removed potential dangers from medical procedures. I therefore suggest that, it is possible the risks are removed.

I would also like to point out one small fact the negative may have overlooked from the ABC article. The truth is, I don't have to agree with the ethics behind the issue for the issue to still be relevant. To use another example, I may not agree with euthanasia for example, but if legislation was to be passed for it to become legal (it's currently illegal where I live, so apologies if this does not apply to someone else who reads this), there wouldn't be a thing I could do about it. No matter what my thought, the law would still be in place. The same goes for this, but in a slightly different sense. I may not agree with the ethics, but the fact remains it can be done, and therefore can be used to support my claims.

The negative has also stated that, "Women are capable at doing these things [military and construction]. But is this the desire of all women? No." Well of course. No one's disputing that fact. Truth be told, you're also going to find a lot of men who do not want to do that either. In a society where only women would exist, you would need a balance of women who want to defend and construct, and those who which to nurture in the home. I feel I can therefore safely say that, on this point at least, the affirmative has proven why men are not needed, and the negative has not shown otherwise.

"It is the different personalities, beliefs, etc. and you will still have those with women/men even if the world excluded males." True. However, without men in the world, this is one more conflict to be removed from the world. It's a small point, I will admit that, but it is still one that shows why women do not need men.

In closing, a discussion of the themes presented from both sides. Beginning with the negative, the entire negative case appears to have been based around the ideas of "liberty, equality, fraternity", and those with history majors can see where I got that from. However, simply put, those ideas will hold, if not even more so, with only women in the world. It is therefore safe to say that based on the negatives case, there is no need for men in the world.

The negative was also placed with the burden of proving why men are needed in the world. However, the negative seems to believe that by simply rebutting my arguments, this will then come together. I am still wondering where the proof and the strength of the negatives case is. On those grounds alone there should be substantial reasoning for an affirmative vote.

Whilst the affirmatives case is not perfect, as nothing ever is in this world, it is a reasonable case, showing simple reasons why men are not truly needed in the world. After all, that is what the debate is about. It's not about how equal we are in society or how we should all be equal. It is about necessity, and through my case it should be clear, men are not necessary.

I will now leave the negative to close (and rebut where my opponent deems it necessary) and await the results.
James.ticknor

Con

Hi. I'm in a bad mood cause after the three day weekend I got sick and I am still sick. Also one of my speeches accedetally got deleted so I'm moderatly pis....well you know. It has been fun. K, here I go...now...

"My logical conclusion is that in the past we have removed potential dangers from medical procedures. I therefore suggest that, it is possible the risks are removed." Well it has been mathmatically proven that 2 2=4. However no one can figure out the value of pi. 3.141592654 something something...anways just because something else has been proven, doesn't mean that the current issue can be solved. Besides, we are looking at the here and now, not the far-off future.

"The truth is, I don't have to agree with the ethics behind the issue for the issue to still be relevant." I think I get your drift. So if the Affirmative thinks that the ethics are wrong, I don't think he/she would do it. So would that be the end of mankind if no one did it? Or womankind...whatever =)

"The negative has also stated that, "Women are capable at doing these things [military and construction]. But is this the desire of all women? No." Well of course. No one's disputing that fact. Truth be told, you're also going to find a lot of men who do not want to do that either. In a society where only women would exist, you would need a balance of women who want to defend and construct, and those who which to nurture in the home. I feel I can therefore safely say that, on this point at least, the affirmative has proven why men are not needed, and the negative has not shown otherwise." If that is the case, then why can't we say that men don't need women? They can do the jobs better because they are biologically proven to be faster, stronger, and better. Resulting in a better society- a better world. (Horray for copy and paste!)

"True. However, without men in the world, this is one more conflict to be removed from the world. " One less conflict that could create many more. Such as the need for sex. Yes, the NEED for sex. I don't think lesbians have the same parts as a man...well, some might. (Pardon me!)

Yeah, my case was centered around equality. Women fought for it, in particular, to become considered as equal as a man. It is clear that many women believe in equality. Besides, women can never have 'brotherhood'. (Play on words. Heh)

"However, simply put, those ideas will hold, if not even more so, with only women in the world." How in the world can the idea of equality hold when men are considered inferior? How long will it be before the further subdivide themselves as human beings and establish Hitler's guidelines of a perfect world? After all, they are only trying to perfect the world, right? If they can rid men, why not the imperfect women? Mass genocide, war- you get the picture. I'm not saying this may not happen, I'm just saying it's a possibility. Excuse the many hypothetical questions. I'm giddy today.

"The negative was also placed with the burden of proving why men are needed in the world. However, the negative seems to believe that by simply rebutting my arguments, this will then come together." I established my simple case in the beginning and have succesfully rebutted all of your points, making them void. So if I successfully rebut the points and my case still stands, I believe I should win the votes.

"It's not about how equal we are in society or how we should all be equal. It is about necessity, and through my case it should be clear, men are not necessary." We could eliminate all of the unnessicary things in the world, but then we would only be existing on nothing but the idea of existing. Or we could enjoy life (which I personally belive is the point of life).

Thanks for a great debate man. Please vote NEG.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by bored 7 years ago
bored
nice debate:P
I was talking to some friends about this subject earlier today..but they were less informed. However, so was I :)
anyway, my votes:
conduct was a tie, both of you were quite civil
s&g was pro, con had more noticeable mistakes
convincing arguments and sources was pro. (I agree that it is difficult to find theoretical sources on the Internet but not impossible. simple look up some articles having to do with human nature and yin and yang=)
Posted by James.ticknor 7 years ago
James.ticknor
2nd debate completely finished today...free to start another!
Posted by James.ticknor 7 years ago
James.ticknor
Milk milk milk milk milk milk milk milk........are you drinking milk yet?
Smoke smoke smoke smoke smoke smoke.....are you smoking yet?
Die die die die die die die die die die....are you taking a bath with Mr. Bubbles yet?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
TheAxisJames.ticknorTied
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 
Vote Placed by bored 7 years ago
bored
TheAxisJames.ticknorTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
TheAxisJames.ticknorTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
TheAxisJames.ticknorTied
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