Women Are worse then men at many things. Genetically we are better then women and in the grand scheme of the world we have been better since the creation of man. Only recently have we developed the theory that women are on par with men. You could say that because women live longer and because women are better students that this makes a difference But I have something against that. Again in the grand scheme of things academics are not important to what defines who is better because academics is a rather new thing to the human race. (oh don't snap at me and say that academics have been around since ave drawings) Also living longer is rather a new thing and back in the day our life expectancy was shorter and women's was almost the same as means.
I don't mean to be rude to my opponent but this argument seems a bit dumb on the face of it. First off we are all conceived female in our mothers womb. So the genetic affinity should be obvious. I wonder what my opponent means by "Worse"? In what respect exactly? Most violent crime is committed by men for instance. Men are worse drivers than women contrary to popular misconception. My opponent mentions women being good students. Actually that is more of a product of feminist politics then genetics. Boys are suffering because inadequate attention is being paid to boys academic achievement and it's a crime. Men and women are both highly capable of learning and growing given the appropriate opportunities. It's true women have made fewer contributions to society but that's not difficult to understand. Women bear children and are their primary care givers. The more agrarian a society is, the more a women's life will be focused on this task. Farmers need larger families. The more women are freed from the farm the more they are able to try their hand at other things like the arts, medicine, the sciences, and economics and sure enough we've seen remarkable increases in women's achievements in all these fields. Men and women are neither better nor worse than each other but merely different.
Do not Worry fellow opponent I do not take your argument to be rude at all. And First Off I just want to say That i mean no offense to any women or anyone viewing this.I know the statement is a bit controversial but I want to push my debating skills. also pardon me for any Gramatical or spelling mistakes. Anyways continuing on with the debate. My opponent brings up a good point women are what help make men and visa versa. One would not exist without the other as such in all sexual species. Now females in most species are genetically designed to be dormant and camouflage in with the environment to protect their babies and stay away from harm. ( not in the case of the lioness). Genetically Most female species are created to be more tentative witch might in some situations lead to them being better drivers SITUATIONALLY! If you look at any professional racing you would notice that mens times are Hugely better then females. With this being said driving takes little to no physical use of the body although you do have to be in shape. So why is it that women's times are still worse then mens when the physical element is removed. Its because of the genetics behind it. Men, ever since the hunters and gatherers have been more aware of their surroundings and more daring. This helps and ties into why they are better drivers in the professional scheme. When it is in a situational environment like driving on the open road it might benefit females a little bit because they are more tentative and less risk taking. For example a man might be more willing to switch lanes in a tight situation on a highway then a female would be. Saying that women are merely different is like saying potato pot"to. of course they mean the same thing but are they really? Pot"to often refers to yams and potato refers to the most common brown potato. Both are called the same yet both are genetically different. the potato is better at surviving in harsh conditions then the yam is. The yam is often eaten by animals and is an inferior large vesicle of a plant that should be extinct! Applying a very darwanistic theory to the two we can conclude that the potato is superior to the pot"to because the potato can survive longer and can adapt to its surroundings much better. In conclusion Our society men and women are not so different apart from the fact that men are genetically superior to women!
Thanks for your response. You remarked that men are better drivers in respect to racing. That my be true. However, women are just now entering the sport so it's kind of hard for us to judge the matter fairly. Further, there is the question of survival value. Only a tiny fraction of the human population will ever drive a race car. Many people in the modern world will drive ordinary cars. We use them to shop for groceries, get to the doctor or the hospital, and to work. We depend heavily on private vehicles for survival. The group of people able to operate these vehicles more safely are far more valuable to their families and society than those who merely drive well for the entertainment of others. Women are safer drivers according an article in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com...
The yams vs. patatos argument doesn't work out well at all. If either male or female of the human species went extinct we would go extinct as a species entirely. Many of my opponents arguments seem to simply point out his preferences rather than true superiority.
Cars, using my favorite phrase, In the grand scheme of things (<--I just love that) Are relatively new. Saying this Back in the days of chariots,wagons, and other forms of horse drawn forms of movement women were never allowed to drive. Partiall because We were extremely sexist back then and partially because men are better at things that require strength,sheer will,and determination! Also Responding to your last statement I have some Good news for you! Male scientists have recently made scientific breakthroughs that show that females are no longer needed for the birth process! http://www.foxnews.com...
I will not dive into that right now because it need's alot of scientific explaining that I am not qualified to explain but you can read it on your own! Also In many situations the male of a species is smart enough to turn itself into an asexual being when there are no females around. Then the male creates its own children again reproducing without the need of a female.Once again the sheer genetics of the male species prevail over the female. Not only is it impossible for a female to turn asexual it is not possible for it to create without the male showing the female is dependent on the male not the other way around. Once again I do not mean to offend anyone or hurt anyones feelings I am merely testing my debating skills. Unguard!
Here I'm sorry to say my opponent has gone off the rails. First, it's true that there were no cars in the past, but on the other hand; in the past the ability to have and care for children was a matter of life and death in an agrarian society. Farms needed lots of people to tend them. The criteria for survival changes over time, but as I've pointed out each respective sex has a vital role to play. There will never be a time when one sex can say they are more valuable than the other.
My opponents claims about females not being need for the birth process is just plain bunk. Read the headline of the story just a bit closer: "Men, Women No Longer Needed to Make Babies?" Notice the word "Men" in the title. He is wrong all over the place on asexual reproduction. From what I can tell it's always females who reproduce this way because it's only females who do things like lay eggs. http://scienceblogs.com... http://www.livescience.com... http://news.mongabay.com...
In any other circumstance I would insist that my opponent document his claims but because this is the last round that is impossible.
I'd like to thank those of you who followed this debate for your patronage and my opponent for his effort.
Reasons for voting decision: Landslide win for Con. Pro lost sources for citing Fox News. Lost S&G for obvious reasons. Conduct was close, but I give it to Con because of Pro's slightly playful attitude on a serious issue. Pro gave no convincing reason for his argument.
Reasons for voting decision: Con was a bit rude, so Conduct to Pro. Con had better grammar and had more relevant sources. Pro's arguments didn't do a good job of presenting his case while Con did a good job of presenting his.
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.