The Instigator
LatentDebater
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lit.wakefield
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The only objective reason not to consider women inferior to men is purely physical.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
lit.wakefield
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,118 times Debate No: 29606
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

LatentDebater

Pro

The burden of proof lies on you, con. For it is you who must prove any other objective reason in support of gender equality.

Definitions

Objective = not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Inferior = of comparatively low grade; poor in quality; substandard.
Physical = of or pertaining to that which is material, for example the body as opposed to the mind.

I believe that if men could get pregnant and have babies, as women do, as well as be equally prone to physical ailments (such as ageing, cancer, heart disease, autism and other male dominated weaknesses) and be as flexible as them then women would be definitely inferior to men and without purpose.

Also the only industries where the best of it are women are physical ones and not even the sports one but rather things like pornography and dance (art is purely subjective so we can't argue with this).

The only point one can raise for men to value women is their ability to get pregnant since in every intellectual and emotional respect men are superior to women.

I know that women are more capable at language, team work and multitasking than men but I will prove that this is actually because men's minds are on far more important things and actually multitasking results form inability to focus on anything for extended periods of time (which is why they have to talk all the time no matter what they do).

For the premises of this debate being a chauvinist pig is not inherently immoral and I should not lose a conduct vote simply for my resolution/standpoint on the matter.
lit.wakefield

Con

Firstly, I find it to be interesting that my opponent has declared that the burden proof is on me to show that women are not inferior, but I will accept it.

As my opponent has not defined prove, I will define it:

Prove (vb)-
"To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence." [1]

I take this to mean that I must provide support for my reasons that is fairly convincing.

In regards to my opponent's definition of physical, I take his meaning to be that the reason I give must be related to properties that arise from the physical and not the physical body itself (meaning, as he said, the mind, consciousness, as well as other things that are rooted in the brain, but not related to the actual part itself),

Pro stated the following: "For it is you who must prove any other objective reason in support of gender equality." I take this to mean that I must provide at least one objective reason that is not physical that displays that women are not inferior in whatever area I happen to pick. My opponent has stated that "in every intellectual and emotional respect men are superior to women." I therefore conclude that my forum is primarily the intellectual and emotional and that in order to fulfill my burden of proof, I must provide at least one instance in which women are, in general, equal to or superior to men with regards to emotion or intellect or anything else non-physical. If I am able to do this, I will have satisfied my opponent's requirements.

I will not address my opponent's points about the physical aspects of women as he has stated that I must provide a reason that not physical. All things physical will therefore be off limits in this debate.

First off, my opponent has already provided an objective reason why women are not inferior. He states, "I know that women are more capable at language, team work and multitasking than men." Since he does not challenge this and claims it to be true, I do not have to provide any further evidence.

He makes the claim that this is not due to superiority or equality of women in these areas, but instead "because men's minds are on far more important things." I would ask him the following: If this is true, then why are men not affected by this equally in all areas when it comes to cognitive ability? Why is it that women are specifically more capable at language? His claim is unwarranted, and unless he can provide objective evidence for his seemingly subjective assertion that the reason for the inferiority of men in these areas is due to the fact that they are thinking about more important things, I have fulfilled my burden of proof.

I take his statement that "multitasking results form[sic] inability to focus on anything for extended periods of time" to mean that men's lesser ability to multitask results from their inability to focus on anything for long durations of time. Is this not just support for the equality and superiority of women in this aspect? I would argue that if my opponent's claim is true, then men are "of comparatively low grade; poor in quality; substandard" when it comes to multitasking and focus.

In conclusion, it appears that my opponent may have already lost the debate.

Also, I would agree with my opponent about the conduct vote. If you feel he is being sexist, this is no reason for him to lose the conduct vote in the context of this debate, unless, for example, he suddenly throws out a string of obscenities directed at women and goes off on a sophomoric rant about them. I do not think he will do this though.

(I get the picture that I'm debating Cristopher Hitchens... It's unsettling.)

Thank you.

[1] thefreedictionary.com
Debate Round No. 1
LatentDebater

Pro

No offence to my opponent but you truly misunderstood my argument about multitasking.

I said that multitasking is merely the lack of ability to focus. It is represented by the fact that women have the urge to talk so much no matter what it is they are doing whilst talking, since unless they are doing two things at once they simply cannot seem to process the fact that they must zone in on their work. What other explanation is there or their advantage? Apparently the current theory is more connections between sides of the brain mean there is a far more sophisticated network for women to switch between tasks instantaneously but how is this an advantage if men can focus better inherently? Focusing on something is what made Mozart, the musician he was, Einstein the scientist he was and Michael Phelps the swimmer he was. Women are simply too all-over-the-place only really having an advantage in a situation such as household chores where doing two at once can sav ea lot of time but house hold chores are really only taxing to the body and are usually able to be done by even those suffering from Alzheimer's disease since they are so simple to cognitively process. Its doing actions in a preset order to achieve an outcome, similar to blue collar job style of work, and clearly they are at the lower end of the food chain of workers.

Women are more capable than men at using language but throughout history men have shown that they are far more efficient users of their limited talents.

In fact it is a man (http://sciencefocus.com...) who speaks the most language (59) fluently in the world. In fact if one were to flick through the Guinness book of world records they'd find very few mental feats being women and the only ones being women being reading speed or talking speed or something down that line. And while such inherent talent seems to make them not inferior to men the sad truth is that reading and speaking fast is not an advantage at all because in fact this woman (shown in the documentary) means she always has to speak and read agonizingly slow if ever relating to other people so overall it's a huge disadvantage to her. It's not even that she can memorise it all after reading so fast, merely that the is able to put thoughts into words (even those form reading) at a high rate... Well this is a useless skill... She hasn't even made use of it whereas I'm sure a man with her 'unfortunate gift' would have made far better use of it, perhaps making a tv show or something (the showbusiness directors are dominated by men, in fact there is virtually not a single female movie director in history of mankind, so it's not just the plain things like business, math and science that men thwart women at).

You are yet to display a single way that women prove their 'lack of inferiority' to men other than physically.
lit.wakefield

Con

None taken. It was truly asinine and inexcusable of me to not see that. I somehow replaced "they" with "we." Maybe I was multitasking.

"What other explanation is there or[sic] their advantage?"

In regards to the superior ability of women to multitask, I suggest a different origin of this talent: the differences in brain composition between men and women. The explanation my opponent has postulated is no more valid than mine, as he has failed to provide any evidence for it. My opponent has simply asserted this "all-over-the-place" and "urge to talk so much" stereotype of women without backing it up. He also simply asserts that women's ability to multitask is derived from their lack of focus. These assertions are unwarranted. Furthermore, the uncontested and undisputed fact that women have superior multitasking ability should be enough to convince the reader that I have met the requirements needed to fulfill my burden of proof.

Also, my opponent called multitasking an advantage and then claimed that it is not an advantage because it is supposedly coupled with a decreased ability to focus. I would argue that the cause and reasons for the ability are irrelevant, even if the ability comes as the result of what my opponent might call an "inferior" quality. Superior multitasking ability is still an advantage in and of itself.

"Women are more capable than men at using language." Based on the conditions of the debate, this is all I need to show in order to fulfill my burden of proof, and my opponent has accepted it. Whether or not men are "more efficient users of their limited talents" is irrelevant.

My opponent has presented a single case. Ziad Fazah is an outlier. It does not matter what the gender of a specific high achieving individual is. This information cannot be used to determine how men and women match up against each other in general and can go the other way as well. For example, a woman won the UK memory championship last year [2], but as it has already been established that we are talking about equality, superiority, and inferiority in general, these arguments are irrelevant. Also, I would note that being able to speak 59 languages fluently has nothing to do with being able to use them. It has already been established that women are more skilled in their use of language.

"In fact if one were to flick through the Guinness book of world records they'd find very few mental feats being women[sic] and the only ones being women[sic] being reading speed or talking speed or something down that line."
My opponent has provided no evidence for this assertion. Even if he does do so, the argument is irrelevant to the debate topic, for as I have just stated, we are discussing men and women in general, not outliers in any specific category.

My opponent has argued that this woman's ability is actually detrimental to her interaction with others (inferior interaction ability). It is a superior ability nonetheless. I do, however, admit that her case is irrelevant, as we are not talking about outliers.

"I'm sure a man with her 'unfortunate gift' would have made far better use of it." This is just another unsupported assertion.

Women are better at teamwork. The reader should note that that this point remains uncontested. My opponent has dropped the argument.

"Drop - An argument is dropped when it is not responded to. Arguments that are dropped are usually considered true for the remainder of the debate. You must respond to an argument once it is made, you cannot wait until the next round." [2]

This alone is enough to fulfill my burden of proof.

In this round, I will also introduce another way in which women are equal to men: IQ. Studies have found the average male IQ is two points higher than the average female. This is a very slight difference and one I would argue is almost negligible and certainly not "substandard." More recent studies have shown that this is changing; the averages for women in this study were slightly higher than averages for men (again, just by a matter of points). [3] This at least supports gender equality. I would argue that any difference in general intelligence is not due to the fact that women possess two X chromosomes, but because of their environment and how it has "responded" to their gender.

"You are yet[sic] to display a single way that women prove their 'lack of inferiority' to men other than physically." As I have shown, this is not the case.

In conclusion, I have presented four objective, non-physical ways in which women are equal to or superior to men.

[1] http://www.worldmemorychampionships.com...
[2] Debate.org Orientation thread; http://www.debate.org...
[3]http://www.psychologytoday.com... (I tried to find the most reliable source for this information; as I felt the others were overly biased in their interpretation of the results to favour of women, I chose this one)
Debate Round No. 2
LatentDebater

Pro

I have helped my opponent meet his BOP. I am an idiot.


No point trying.

Pessimism has defeated me.
Debate Round No. 3
LatentDebater

Pro

Effort to be optimistic is futile!

BOP has been met by enemy!

Activate SELF-DESTRUCT in 3..2.................. sh*t I'm in hell.
lit.wakefield

Con

Don't worry. In many other universes you won this debate.

Also I would like to take a moment to point out that shockofgod has the most interesting channel on youtube.
Debate Round No. 4
LatentDebater

Pro

Allah Hu Akhbar...

lit.wakefield

Con

For more information go to:
http://rationalwiki.org...

And here's evidence of what shock says:



This is related to the debate because it's not.

It is not women we must kill, but atheists.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
lmao those videos are highly disturbing
Posted by LatentDebater 4 years ago
LatentDebater
lol.
Posted by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
"The following exception(s) occurred:

Profanities are not allowed in comments." F...
Posted by LatentDebater 4 years ago
LatentDebater
oh poop I shall post the documentary next round
Posted by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
Anyway, good luck. After this I'll finally be able to vote...
Posted by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
Curious to know why LatentDebater is, as he put it, a "chauvinist pig" lol
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
LatentDebaterlit.wakefieldTied
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: I don't know.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
LatentDebaterlit.wakefieldTied
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: Glop.