The Battle of the sex's; Do you believe the female is superior than a male in todays society.
Debate Rounds (2)
It is a well known fact that in most cultures women live longer than men. In the United States, for instance, all races considered, women now live an average of 80.1 years, compared to 74.8 years for men. Hence, from a longevity standpoint women score a point.
Many studies have demonstrated that women have a higher pain tolerance than men; probably an evolutionary adaptation from childbirth. (The brilliant comedienne, Carole Burnett once tried to express to a man the pain of childbirth by telling him to imagine what it would feel like to "Take your bottom lip and pull it over your head!") Higher pain tolerance = another point for women.
Similarly, it is believed that, on the whole, women can live longer than men without food because women have more body fat and less muscle mass than men. Since fatty tissue needs far fewer calories than muscle, women have the double advantage during starvation of having less muscle (thus burning fewer calories) and more fat (thus having a greater amount of stored calories) which translates into a metabolic advantage during times of famine. Score's now women 3; men zip.
Moreover, due to having less body mass than men, women use fewer natural resources (i.e., air, water, food, fuel, etc.) so women are naturally "greener" than men. Okay, score's now 4 to 0.
In addition, generally, women seem to have higher social and emotional intelligence than men; are less violent and aggressive; are almost never serial killers or sexual sadists; and are far safer drivers (sorry guys, but it's true). In fact, a recent "New York Times" piece noted that men are found to drive faster overall, ignore traffic laws more often, take more (and greater) risks and are involved in the majority of fatal crashes around the globe. Score's now women 5; men nada.
Also, having two X chromosomes provides a huge health advantage, which is clearly the case for X-linked diseases, such as color blindness, hemophilia and Duchenne's disease (a severe recessive X-linked form of muscular dystrophy). These diseases, caused by mutations on the X chromosome, nearly always affect only men. Since females have two cell lines (one paternal and the other maternal with different X chromosomes active), if just one of a woman's X chromosomes is "healthy" it can prevent the expression of most X-linked diseases. Males, however, who have a "sick" X chromosome will inevitably be affected, as they have no "back-up" X chromosome from a "healthy"cell line. Women 6; men zilch.
And then there's parthenogenesis! A form of asexual reproduction found exclusively in females, where growth and development of embryos occurs without fertilization by a male. What's more, parthenogenesis always results in female progeny because the offspring invariably possess two X chromosomes. While there are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild, it does occur in a variety of species and is a possibility in humans. Hence, it is theoretically possible for women to reproduce without any male, genetic contribution (i.e., sperm) while it is impossible for men to procreate without women. Score another point (their seventh) for the girls.
And speaking of sex, consider that women can be multi-orgasmic! Score another major point for the ladies.
In essence, the only area where men have a clear advantage over women is their physical strength and possibly reaction time. But, unless we're considering sports or athletic performance, even this physical advantage is becoming less and less important due to technological advancements that are leveling the physical playing field. Still, in all fairness, let's give the guys a point.
Final score: Women 8; Men 1.
So, in a true battle of the sexes, the smart move would be to bet on the women. Sorry Justice Scalia, but even narrow-minded, conservative misogynists can't ignore the facts all the time.
Remember, Think well, act well, feel well, be well!
Copyright by Clifford N. Lazarus, Ph.D.
I got this from http://www.psychologytoday.com...
It stated exactly what i wanted to put forward :)
For the purpose of clarification, my job in this round is not to prove that the male gender is superior to the female gender. I only have to prove that the argument presented by my opponent is simply not enough to claim that one gender is superior to the other.
Let's start with my opponents first argument; lifespan. While I can not deny the fact that women generally live longer than men; I can point out the lack of constructive logic behind this argument. My opponent's logic here is that women live longer than men and as such are superior. Following this same pattern couldn't I then say that a tortoise lives longer than a human and as such is superior?
My opponent also fails to recognize that an organisms lifespan is not solely dependent on biology, it is also influenced by external factors. This source explains it thoroughly: http://www.scientificamerican.com...
2. Tolerance for pain.
I notice that my opponent mentions that multiple studies have demonstrated that women have a higher pain tolerance than men, yet he failed to provide any links or documentation to indicate where these studies came from or even a clue as to how reliable and controversial these studies are. And in response to pain tolerance due to child birth; pain killers are pretty popular these days.
3. Body fat
Women have less muscles to break down and turn to energy needed for the body to continue to function. Without this essential, the body ill collapse on itself and regardless of how much fat you have, you will die.
My opponent makes a good point when he says that women have higher social and emotional intelligence than men;he however, failed to mention that men proven to be more logical thinkers and better in arithmetic than females are. Does that make men superior? http://www.avoiceformen.com...
Just because one gender excels in an area does not give my opponent enough grounds to say that they are then the superior gender. Both parties have their part to play as equals.
The fact is, despite having only one X chromosome, men are far less likely to report sick than women are. http://news.bbc.co.uk...
If we want to go outside the human race, parthenogenesis is no prove of superiority. Ones again, if that was the case, then a gold fish is our superior.
Throughout this round, my opponent has simply pointed out things that are irrelevant to whether or not women are superior to men. I have proven that in society, each gender has a role to play. The only way to achieve these goals however, is through equality.
Mindy_Sidhu forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: THIS IS NOT A VOTEBOMB I really wish I had seen that this was a forfeit before I read through both of your opening arguments. However, they were interesting, so it wasn't an awful thing. In the future, when posting to the "voting" forum, please label it as a FF. I lost all respect for Pro's argument once I found out it was taken word-for-word from another source. I understand if you want to take a few paragraphs, or state that your quoting something from another source, but the whole round being taken from another article? That defeats the point of independent opinion-forming. Conduct goes to Con for the FF. S/G goes to Con for obvious reasons. Args go to Con, not only because Con actually thought of their arguments, but because they were actually sound and well sourced. Sources also go to con, for using reliable sources to defend and support points, rather than make them entirely. Well done, Con. Keep trying, Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate