Women are more to blame for the attitude of men toward them than men themselves are.
Debate Rounds (5)
Minimum of 4 debates required to accept.
Good luck to pro.
Secondly, there is the issue that if free will does exist, to whatever extent, that men's attitude to women are their choice and their own making.
This is not at all true.
I will now prove that, in the absence of free will, the blame naturally falls on the women for the attitude towards them.
If one gender performs certain acts, throughout history and at present, that are interpreted in a certain way by the neurological processes in the minds of others as indicative of willing to receive a certain reputation, then it is the fault of that gender, as a whole, for receiving that reputation posed to the other gender for forming that involuntary opinion of them.
If both acts and thoughts are involuntary, the actions are the cause of the thoughts about the actions and the people making them, a supposed to the thoughts that lead to the actions being a result of the attitude of the other gender to begin with (which do you think came first)?
Nevertheless, if my opponent can prove that free will exists to some extent then I will have to rely on my latter case: The theory that women's prejudice to men's prejudice forces men to remain prejudiced.
I will now explain exactly what I mean.
It is unclear what, in the beginnings of humanity, led men to have such a misogynistic view on society but what is clear is that this has been prevalent throughout history in almost every society that ever came to exist (apart form perhaps Native Americans and certain African tribes that are now unheard of and the fact they got virtually wiped out is no coincidence). What is clear, however, is that when women choose a partner, that partner's view on women is very much the last thing on her mind. In fact, if the man hates women but loves her alone, it would inevitably be a huge bonus for her in terms of loyalty. So, you ask me, how come feminists only date men that display feminism? I reply to you they they usually don't. they either date closet gays that let them be a 'swinging couple' preaching Liberalism while smoking some illegally obtained pot or they end up realizing their inner lesbian and revealing it to the world for what it is.
If you think I am making baseless claims than observe carefully: http://www.anonymousconservative.com...
There is a gene named '7r' that when present, to its extremes, leads people to be homosexual. However, in its lesser form allows bisexual Liberalism to form in a person's mind. this gene was not found on anyone who grew to be Conservative or severely heterosexual. This is not a joke. This is real science.
A fully Liberal society will inevitably decrease in population. There is no peer pressure among people for men and women to stay together an raise their young properly in a family as it should be. Instead, there is just chaos.
Want evidence that reproduction rates rapidly decrease as a nation becomes more liberal? Okay, sure. http://www.wholereason.com...
See, the fact is that when a nation begins becoming less Conservative, hence merciful on its women, the women begin choosing to do stupid things like not have children. This might sound really ignorant and anti-feminist but it's actually a literal fact. Natural selection is weeding out the women who do not channel their inner whore to go through with two children to make up for the loss of them and their husband's life. Their genes are simply not being passed on. Liberal whores who do porn are fine and welcome to do so but if they choose not to have kids on the side, they're also contributing to the problem and only furthering the validity of my contention.
When you give women rights the nation gradually decays to an abysmal population that is easily thwarted by any Patriarchy's invasion, throughout history this has been consistently true. The fact of the matter is that women don't know what to do when men treated them as equals, let alone superiors. When they finally do gain power, as both Merkel and Thatcher showed, they develop a gruff masculine voice and behave just like men do anyway, only furthering the theory that men are living the right way and women are in the wrong.
On top of this, if men are to blame for their attitude to women then explain to me why female porn directors and female fashion designers often the most extreme/extravagant? If my opponent disagrees with this, I'll prove it in the next round. With porn, it's not the violence that's extreme, it's the severity of detail in the foreplay and f*cking.
Women, who are not on a suicide race for our species to go extinct, often seek men who show authority and dominance, it's not necessarily about status, it's about confidence , charisma and the ability to put a woman in her place. I am being serious now, why would muscle attract women? do you think they are thinking "oooh he has so much muscle he could beat up all the other guys who wants me!" or do you think she's thinking "Ay, Papi! He gonna rip me a new one tonight!"... No actually it's neither of those two things, what she's actually thinking is "He so funny! He so clever! Me wanna be his 4eva!"
then if you ask them how he's funny or clever, they reply "shut up it's between him and me you don't know our true love!" Then he ditches her for a smarter girl and that is when she concludes that all men are chauvinistic pigs.
I am generalizing but I'm illustrating a bigger issue; women don't pick men based on how nice the guy is, they pock him base don how nice he makes her want to be to him.
This is the fundamental fallacy of female sexuality that is the root cause of the entire male attitude towards women to begin with. A father can't leave his daughter alone with a hot boy for two minutes before she is all giggly and doesn't even realize how wet his imaginary persona is about to make her when she daydreams about him that evening. Then,t he more the father tries to protect her from this guy who is an inevitable prick, her mother says to him "Hey you! Let her follow her heart!" Then when ti goes wrong the mother says "Hey you! You should comfort her, not act like it's her own fault that he is so mean!". Then the nice doctor he has planned for arranged marriage to her is like "dude, I don't even think she likes me..." then the father is like "I'm so sorry but she goes for bad boys!" and that is the story of life. Then she eventually, in her mid-twenties, realizes that she wants a nice, stable husband and spends the rest of her life in an unhappy marriage that will probably end in divorce because he can't make her wet enough in the bedroom, but she'll just say that it's because he doesn't do the dishes or clean up after himself.
In fact, abusive husbands are very strategically clever. They make the wife so degraded that she begins to believe he's the best she'll ever get. this is in fact the only viable way to 'keep a woman'. The way that most normal people use is just rolling a dice in a gamble that she doesn't realize how sexually inactive your relationship is and that you're hitting a mid-life crisis and by point it will be too late to divorce you because she's too ugly to get laid by another man.
Say what you want. Feminists aren't continuing our species well enough and matriarchy has completely failed throughout history unless the woman behaves like a man.
I have run out of character space and am too angry to type anymore. Sorry for my rage. I am very passionate on this topic.
I would first like to thank the pro for creating this wonderful debate centered on this interesting topic. So now on to the actual debate.
This debate is a pro-centered debate, meaning the burden of proof is on the pro to successfully prove that "Women are more to blame for the attitude of men toward them than men themselves are." This means he must prove without a doubt that women must take the highest blame of the attitude of the opposite sex. The con will be running a balanced negative case, which means I will argue that society or other sources are more to blame than women themselves. This means that women and men can share the blame equally.
The Con should win this debate if four scenarios happen.
Scenario 1-The pro fails to show how women are responsible for the attitude of men.
Scenario 2-The pro fails to show how women more to blame than men when dealing with the attitude of men
Scenario 3-The con shows how other sources are to blame
Scenario 4-The con shows how the blame is shared.
Please note that the only way the pro can actually win this debate is by scenario 2. If the pro somehow succeeds in scenario 1, that does not mean the pro wins due to the resolution including the word "more". So it does not matter if the pro can show how women are responsible for the attitude of men, they have to be to most responsible.
With this being said I would like to present 2 arguments for the con case
Argument 1-Society is a greater influence on the attitude of men toward women.
Society is defined as "A human society is a group of people involved in persistent interpersonal relationships, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations."
The basis of this argument is simple. All people interact with society and this society determines cultural expectations. Men interact with women and together determine to social customs. Society is a greater entity than men so thus, they are included. This is crucial because the pro"s argument is already shown via society and not just men. The only way the pro can disprove this argument is by showing how men are not a part of Society and do not interact with a women. This is next to impossible due to every man having a mother so there has to be some interaction. This argument would be under scenario 3 in the intro and should give the con a victory if ignored.
Argument 2-Since Society determines the cultural expectation, the blame must be shared between men and women for the attitude of men towards women.
This is another basic simple argument. Since society is composed of both men and women and society determines how men view women, thus the blame must be shared since both males and females are a part of society. These cultural expectations are merely expectations and are not forcing anyone to do anything. This argument would fall under scenario 4 of the in the intro and if this argument is ignored then it grants the con a victory. Now I will address the pro"s case.
The pro"s case was very interesting. It was a less of a structured argument and more of the ramblings of someone. Regardless of the fact, the con will try to piece together the argument made by the pro by going through each argument in the order presented by the pro.
This argument is invalid and voided, due to the fact that it is simple a red herring. The resolution does not discuss free will at all, and the pro is trying to modify the agreed upon resolution. He is also not actually discussing the concept of free will . From the definition of free will ""it is a commonly-held intuition that we have free will." So thus the Pro already has to prove how free will exists does not exists (Later on in his case he shows proof of free will), if the pro continues on argue this red herring. This debate could be over at this point simple due to this one point alone, because as the pro says his case is based on the absence of free will. The pro states that they could change their initial argument but this would be breaking standard debate protocol as I am attacking a case that will no longer be valid, thus wasting my first chance to attack the pro"s case.
The history argument is irrelevant and extremely baseless. There is no evidence of what the pro saying being true. He is making baseless claims without and slight amount of proof. This argument is also an Appeal to Antiquity, since it believes old customs dictate current events. And these customs further increase the argument of Society dictating the attitude more than women themselves. Also his source used to back up the point is extremely biased and does not actually relate to what the pro was saying. This site that the pro cites uses a form of hack science for their claims and is not really studying genes.
I fail to see how this point is related to the debate at all. A society"s political stance does not determine how men view women, and if it did then this backs up the Society point I keep on talking about. This point has another biased source that uses hack science to prove its point.
The con feels this point was made to express the pro"s political thoughts even though the resolution does not need the personal opinions of either side. The pro tries to rationalize their argument by giving a baseless consequence.
Another Red Herring by the pro, this claims states that women should not have right or the nation will decay. This point was made without any basis and should be dropped and forgotten about. I"ll group fashion designers in this claim due to both not really being topical. This argument also breaks debate etiquette by not proving the claim he is stating in the current round.
Women"s Mind and the fallacy of female sexuality
This argument tried to illustrate why women are fundamentally flawed, simply due to them choosing a mate. This example/scenario illustrates how free will exists as the woman in this example is choosing mate based on nothing from society. If the woman applied by the rules of society then the father would dictate the woman"s mate choice due them being in society (According to the logic presented by the pro) This argument also only gave an example of what the pro thinks and did not really elaborate on how this would work in theory. The abusive husbands point and the feminists point should be ignored since it contributes nothing to this debate.
I await the pro"s response.
baus forfeited this round.
Please extend my arguments
baus forfeited this round.
Extend all arguments, please.
baus forfeited this round.
Please vote con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 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||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.