The ratio from Men to Women has to be 10% men and 90% women for true equality.
Debate Rounds (4)
With all that out of the way, I hope that I can get someone to debate!
Round 1 Is just stating position, with all other rounds providing evidence and arguing.
What I am arguing that for equality to work, men and women have to be uneven, with men being at 10% and women 90%.
In my arguments I will be talking about firstly, how in order create equality among all genders we need to make everyone agree. Equality doesn't happen if the majority of people are against it, for African Americans, gay marriage, even currently transgender, there has always prejudice and oppression but this has helped achieve our goal of equality faster than ever.
My second argument in the next round will be about in order for men to fully appreciate what the woman has gone through, we need to establish what we have been through. I am not saying that equality would need such a bias for the entire time, but instead just for a short period so that people actually understand that this issue of women's equality isn't a myth. Lots of people believe that women equality has been a joke and full of feminists who are just against women. To truly understand the delicacy of the situation we need to empathise with others.
Finally, my last argument is going to be about a change in power. We have been dominated with men rule for so long. For example the amount of man leaders to female is so different. Men and women are completely different in some ways, and so therefore by putting women in power while 10% of men don't have a leadership role, maybe we will be able to see different ways our world can world. It is a fact that women and men work differently. Women are known to think things through while men are more in the present. This quality in men is very desirable and great to have in some cases, but maybe in setting a time where women are allowed to take high leadership roles, we will be able to witness her taking some action for different issues, thinking them in a new perspective to a man. Women also prioritise different things to men. For example, having the work industry and political sphere with 90% women instead of 90% men which is currently is, this would mean that we may be able to change different issues such as sanity tools for poor women as a charity rather than funding in sports. We would be able to distribute the money of the government in a different.
So overall, these are my arguments. I am not arguing that 90% women in rights but in the workforce because it is not specified in the topic.
I'm going to start off by defining natural selection. It is where the fitter organism with favourable characteristics live and pass their characteristics to their offspring whereas the other variation of species slowly dies out to an inferior number or nothing.
In 1900, men outnumbered women in the U.S.: 38.8 million versus 37.2 million, a ratio of 95.9 women for every 100 men while now (1999) the situation has reversed: there are 139.5 million women versus 133.4 million men, a ratio of 95.5 males per every 100 women. That being said, we can see how the number of women has increased to men, and can assume that women will continue to grow from this trend while men will probably stay a constant. Rather than DECREASE through "culling" of men, their number just wont increase. Over time women will have such a large population this ratio of 1:9 will be achieved. Us humans, can't argue with the process of natural selection because its basically evolution as it creates the better organism to live while the other variation of species (men) dwindle in numbers. The limiting factor will probably about 10% of males, because females still need men to reproduce but seen as though most men love sex so much, it should be a problem is every male has sex with 9 girls (actually would probably be preferable from most males.)
Similarly in the work force as I was talking about earlier, women have gone from 19% of nation held jobs in Australia in 1900's to tripling to a 60%. This number will continue to increase while men's number won't and eventually reach the limiting factor of 9:1. My arguments in the first round pretty much explain why women should be more dominant in the workforce.
ADHDavid forfeited this round.
Picture this. Lets say you wake up one morning. It is sunny, and you can hear chirping in the distance. But it's not your usual day, sleeping next to your girlfriend. The girlfriend who wakes you up at 6am to go for a run or the girlfriend who uses the bathroom for 3 hours. Instead, you are sleeping next to 9 girls. You have 9 girls to choose from and they all love you to bits, because lets face it, we don't have much choice if the ratio is 9:1 so you literally have girls begging for you. Not sure how many guys would love this situation but I'm guessing a lot.
Picture this. Lets say you wake up one morning. It is sunny an you can hear chirping in the distance. But it's not your usual day. Instead guess who runs the world? (like Beyonce would say). You guessed it! GIRLS! So instead of having to go to your male dominated work place, instead of having to please the boys at school, you can be at ease. Because guess what there is no more feminist talks, there are no more glass ceilings of trying to make your mark on this male dominated society (there are statistics on the glass ceiling business), because (lets be honest) no guy wants to fight with any girl especially if our periods are all on sync.
So overall ladies and gentlemen, you can obviously see that both these scenarios benefit us all :) Face the facts, it would be a utopia
opinionatedbritt forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.