The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Women for president

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,211 times Debate No: 27319
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (35)
Votes (3)




Woman have a right to be president. We, the woman of America, need someone to represent us. I'm not saying we are better than men, but it's unfair to judge all women by how one might act. Would you for instance, try a bad strawberry than never eat strawberries again? Give women a chance. - Caitlyn Hancock, 5th grade student at Pegasus School


My opponent claims that a woman should be president of the United States of America. First of all, allow us to define "should".

Should: Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness.

So what my opponent is claiming is that we, the American populace, have a duty, an obligation, to elect a female president.

The obvious problem with my opponent's argument is that sex has no bearing on the capability of someone as a leader. The president must be many things, and must take on many challenges, but none of them require that they have a particular set of genitals. Yes, women have the right to be president. But that does not mean a woman SHOULD be president. If there is a woman who is more qualified than a particular male candidate, that candidate, by virtue of their qualification, deserves to be elected. But if the reverse occurs, the result should be the same, with the more qualified candidate being elected, not the candidate who's sex matches someone's personal taste. Again, the sex of the president has no bearing on their capabilities as a human individual.

My opponent claims we need a female president so that the women of America "have someone to represent them". This implies though (1) that females are a hive mind, functioning the same way all around the country, and (2) that somehow, someone, by virtue of their sex, is incapable of representing the desires of females. These are both incredibly false. One woman cannot represent "women" as a group, because women do not all think the same, or have the same desires/ideals. To say that if we elect a female president, women will receive larger representation, is to believe that women all think and act the same way. Which is utter poppycock. Women do not all think the same way, and to claim such a thing devalues women as autonomous individuals. Likewise, my opponent also seems to assume that anyone who is NOT female is incapable of representing and defending females. This too, however, is incredibly false. This would imply that anyone who is not female, by virtue of not being female, is incapable of understanding and defending females. But ask yourselves, how does one's genitals figure into this in any way? They don't. Whether you have a penis or vagina has no bearing on how well you can relate to and represent an individual.

Therefore, we have no obligation to elect a female president. What we have an obligation to do is elect a president who is the most qualified individual, who can best represent the population. In no way does one's sex figure into this, so choosing candidates based on their genitals is morally abhorrent.
Debate Round No. 1


Keke2002 forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeit the round. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
I...what? What does that even mean? Did you mean "by their lack of vaginas"? In which case, yeah, many do.
Posted by Dann 4 years ago
Men don't define themselves by their vaginas
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 5 years ago
3. No, it was a critique of your reasoning. You correlate everything to males, when it doesn't deserve to be. That's a problem. Take this situation, where the definition you oppose is not just a "bad" definition, it's a "male definition". It would seem that you harbor some ill will towards males, as you seem to correlate "bad" with "male".

4. A. It is an obvious physical difference, in that it is external and in the same area of the body. B. Because it is the most similar in relation to the penis, and vice versa, thereby strengthening the comparison. C. Because of all the parts of the female reproductive system, it is by far the most well known (by males and females alike).

5. It would be wrong to define human beings as someone with eyes? Why so? Human beings have eyes, do they not? Then it is not at all inaccurate to claim that you can identify someone is a human being, given that they have eyes of a particular kind, shape, and placement. Does saying this say there are no other aspects of human beings? No. But then again, we aren't trying to make some all-inclusive definition about human beings. We're merely talking about what traits comprise them; in other words, what defines them.

Of course there are always exceptions, but these exceptions are are so few and far between, that they are statistical outliers, and therefore, they do not figure into anything when we are establishing a trend.

6. Yes, it is complicated. Simply discussing chromosomes invites a conversation about what role they play in human development, how they impact behavior, if at all, and, in some cases, you have to explain what it is that 'XX' and 'XY' even mean (as you love to point out, my opponent claimed to be a 5th grader. Hardly the age where they start learning the biology of the sexes as 'XX' and 'XY'). Whereas 'penis' and 'vagina' are nearly universally understood things, and also point out the lack of relevant differences between males and females when it comes to topics like
Posted by rross 5 years ago
1. Whatever. I'm sure you know more about it.
2. Perhaps a slight exaggeration. As you say, I don't know much about men.
3. Really? You think I'm "man obsessed"? Perhaps you're right. But anyway, this is an ad hominem attack, isn't it? Can't really see any objection to my argument, whatever it was. That means it stands! Hooray!
4. Yes, but of all the differences you can choose, why pick the vagina of all things? It doesn't really do much. It's a hole.
5. What? Of course it would be wrong to define "human being" as "someone with eyes". We're talking definitions here, not averages. There are no outliers. There are only in-group elements and out-group elements. A woman who's had a hysterectomy is still a woman. Someone with hermaphroditism, for that matter, who defines herself as a woman is still a woman. Any definition of sexual difference must include these more unusual cases. Otherwise the definition is at fault.
6. Eh? XX and XY is too complicated? Seems simple to me.
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 5 years ago
You have quite poor and inaccurate views of males you know.

1) If we're going to start talking about entire reproductive systems rather than just genitals, you cannot say the penis is the "hero of the man's reproductive systems". By your logic about women, it would be the testicles for men.

2) Men are always grabbing and talking to their penises? WHAT? Are you serious? You...this has to be a joke. Please tell me this is an exaggeration, because this simply is not true. Also, vaginas are not central to orgasm, only because there are multiple ways for a female to orgasm and be stimulated.

3) See, why are you relating everything to men now? Why is it "men define women as"? Why can you not look at the definition itself, without relating it to men, or blaming/attacking men? Why are you so man obsessed? That's your problem. Because you don't like the way I defined being female, and disagree with it, you not only have to attack it, but attack it on the basis of being "male".

What's your problem with men?

4) To define a woman as having a vagina is NOT making her out to be a sex object rross. That is ludicrous. To define a woman as "having a vagina" is to note the physical biological differences between males and females; that males and females have different physical systems and reproductive/sexual purposes. That is not making a woman out to be a sex object, no more than it is making a man out to be one. Quit the perpetual victim nonsense.

5) Of course, but this is not the norm. People can also be born without eyes, yet you would not dare to say it is inaccurate to say "being human means you have eyes". Outliers are not a source of sound argument.

6) Social identity maters not, as biology is biology, no matter what society says. Using chromosomes may be more "accurate" in the long run, but requires much more explanation, and it is far simpler to say "See these easily noticeable physical differences? Now you know."

You've made an issue out of nothing
Posted by rross 5 years ago
1. The penis is the hero of a man's reproductive system, but the same is not true of the vagina to a woman's. Probably, if you were going to pick just one part, it would be the uterus or maybe the ovaries. The vagina is just the entry point. It holds tampons. Even in childbirth, the dilation of the vagina is secondary to what the cervix is doing.

2. Women don't love their vaginas the way men love their penises. Men are always grabbing and talking to their penises. Quite often women will reach adulthood without knowing what their vaginas look like. Penises are central to orgasm. Vaginas are not.

3. Men define being male quite happily as "having a penis". Then they look across at women for a similar definition and they see the vagina. Most men like vaginas. Of all the parts of a woman's reproductive system, men get most use out of vaginas. So men are quite happy to define a woman as "having a vagina".

4. To define a woman as "having a vagina" is to define her as a sex object. It is offensive.

5. To use the reproductive system for these definitions is problematic anyway. People can have injuries that leave them without genitals or reproductive systems, but they are still "men" or "women".

6. The standard way of defining "women" and "men" is either chromosomally: XX and XY, or in terms of social identity. Using genitals as a definition is rare because it is so objectionable.
Posted by rross 5 years ago
Since we're onto definitions. Here's another one from the Oxford dictionary again:

genitals (noun): a person"s or animal"s external organs of reproduction.

External is key here.
Posted by rross 5 years ago
trewdys, thank you for your comments about definitions.

When I use the word "sex" I use it as defined by the oxford dictionary:
either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions

Notice how the Oxford dictionary talks about "reproductive functions" rather than the "genitals" that TCH favors so much.

I've never really liked the word "gender" much. It seems a bit prissy to me, somehow. So I tend not to use it. But people do use it, and I would have to use it if "sex" were causing confusion. I'm not sure that it is though.
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 5 years ago
"I said your arguments are masculine. By that I mean, your arguments follow a pattern of thinking that is common in men but rare in women."

That does not make the argument "masculine" however. Masculine implies a certain degree on inhherentness to the particular sex discussed. To say something is "masculine" is to imply such thinking is inherent to males, and not females. This is flawed reasoning however, as any woman could think the same way. Therefore the argument is not "masculine". There is no such thing as a masculine or feminine argument.

As for a common way of thinking amongst males, (1) I must disagree, as any biologist will tell you the same thing, and (2) who cares? It maters not if one particular sex thinks a particular way or not; all that matters is if the argument is sound. You are far too focused on WHO is saying something rather than WHAT is being said, and whether or not it's true.

"I've spent my whole life among women, and I've lived in five continents, and I'm telling you, women don't define themselves by their vagina. Only men do that."

And as someone who has lived around women their whole life, and has lived in multiple states across the U.S.A., I can tell you, yes, they do. Plenty of women do. Any woman in the field of biology will tell you that the defining feature of being female in any species, as is being male, are your physical characteristics e.g. your genitalia. You are factually wrong rross.

"You may be sexless and inhuman, but I am not. To me, it's all about relationships, culture and context. I don't think it's possible to separate yourself and your arguments from these things..."

It is. I am an example of this. You are factually incorrect rross. There is no arguing against it. Admit to your flaw, and correct yourself. Further more, it matters not if someone has removed themselves from their arguments or not. All that matters is their arguments, nothing more. The person saying the words DOES NOT MATTER. Only the word
Posted by trewdys 5 years ago
TCH is correct, sex is purely biological and "genitals" is an adequate simplification of the physical traits that define sex. rross would be entirely correct as well if she'd said "gender" instead of "sex". I'm very sure she meant gender instead of sex. If she didn't then she deserves all the crap she got in this thread.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by rross 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Good topic from Caitlin. Would have been much better if she had posted a second round, of course. Mostly, however, I object to sex being defined as genitalia. This is an absurd, slightly offensive and strangely masculine definition. Of course, it was up to pro to argue, but I think it was an inappropriate line for con to have taken with a ten-year-old opponent.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not respond to Con's argument...
Vote Placed by airmax1227 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF.