The Instigator
warrior_for_truth
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
100 Points

Women should not be allowed to vote or have authority

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 21 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 14,327 times Debate No: 28392
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (106)
Votes (21)

 

warrior_for_truth

Pro

I feel that this debate is important because I think it's important for people to understand that allowing women to vote and giving them more authority has proven to be disastrous--for marriage, family, and society. There is a deliberate agenda to put women in bigger positions of power while taking away the rights of men. I don't believe that women have any place in politics or positions of authority.

However, I also believe that women are the most beautiful of God's creation. Women were made to help men and please him. In return, the man is suppose to love, honor, and protect his wife. Once upon a time, women were such beautiful cratures, but feminism has poisoned everything. Women are replacing a man's role and leadership, and the consequences have been dire.

I welcome my female opponent to express her opinions, and I hope this will be a friendly debate.
Danielle

Con

I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for challenging me to this debate.

While I know Pro is arguing against what is considered politically correct, I highly commend his challenge of arguing against the status quo. Still, of course I vehemently disagree with his assertions. I look forward to a civil, interesting discussion.

Pro opens the debate by saying that allowing women to vote and hold positions of power has been "disastrous" to families and society as a whole. Of course, without examples or evidence, we have no reason to automatically accept this contention as true. Warrior needs to be specific in outlining how women having equal rights (like voting and the ability to hold legitimately elected positions of power) has in itself caused harm. Pro also claims that "There is a deliberate agenda to put women in bigger positions of power while taking away the rights of men." Again, Pro must be more specific in order for this contention to have merit. Who is behind this agenda? How is it being implemented? How are men's rights inhibited by acknowledging the rights of women? What are the dire consequences that Pro references? These are fundamental aspects of the debate that Pro needs to explain.

It is merely Pro's opinion that women were made to help and please men. Indeed, various cultures throughout history have viewed women in different ways. Matriarchal societies are those in which women, particularly mothers, have the central role of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property [1]. Some societies are actually governed and led by women, specifically [2]. Matrifocal family structures are those in which mothers head families and fathers play a less important role [3]. Now, I'm not arguing that these societies are superior to patriarchal ones, but instead pointing out that various cultures view the role of women differently. As such, we cannot automatically assume a woman's "proper" role as Pro indicates. He must argue what that role is or should be and why.


[1] http://www.second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com...
[2] http://utopianist.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
warrior_for_truth

Pro

I thank my opponent for the long reply. I would like to elaborate on why I oppose women voting and having more authority.

Men think in straight lines; women think in circles. When it comes to making decisions, women usually go by their emotions, and their emotions are very fickle. Not only that, but modern day feminists are filled with fury and intolerance, and they tell evil lies about men for the purpose of causing prejudice against them. Many women--not all, but many--are now using their authority to punish men.

The government and the Secret Societies are using women to destroy the family. When a family is strong, the government has less power and control over society. The government has encouraged single motherhood by making a woman benefit from a divorce and by paying child support. The law is also making it harder and harder for good fathers to see their children if the mother chooses to be spiteful. In order for the government to wreck marriage and family, they have gradually changed the law to only benefit women, and this allows women to be completely independant on a man. This is why divorce, single motherhood, and fatherless children has engulfed Western culture.

Then we have the abortion issue. When abortion was first legalized, it could only be done in extreme cases--if the woman had been raped or if there were serious complications. But today, thanks to the feminist movement, abortion has become commonplace. A woman can have an abortion for any reason she wants. And anyone who holds the opinion that a woman should not have an abortion will be subjected to angry opposition, because saying that abortion should not be allowed automatically makes you a "sexist, intolerant biggot who just wants to oppress women."

When men were in charge of the family, society was much better. But the government wanted to destroy this. The government knew that if it gave women more authority and gave men less authority, this would encorage more women to get divorced and be single mothers. And we can now seen the dire results of this agenda.

I look forward to my opponents response.
Danielle

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for his prompt response.

As you can see, most of Pro's assertions are not facts, hence why he offers no evidence confirming his problematic accusations. On the other hand, it is easy to dispute his claims. For instance, he opens the round by claiming men "think in straight lines while women think in circles." I assume the trasnslation of this argument is that men are rational while women are not. Rationality describes using reason and intellect to weigh options on the path toward achieving a stated goal. When emotions and desires cloud an individual's ability to think logically, that individual can be understood as acting irrationally. This can include emotions such as jealousy and anger. Of course, men are known as being more prone to jealousy, anger and violence than women [1]. They're also more inclined to infidelity which is certainly not often rational or conducive to protecting the nuclear family as Pro suggests is of paramount importance.

While it's true that, on balance, women are better at recognizing and dealing with emotions, there is an inherent value in that ability. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum has written about emotions as a form of intelligent thought: evaluations of the status of one's current life in light of one's goals. In this perspective, emotions actually guide rational thinking. They are used as tools of measurement to assess a certain situation. Positive emotions show us that things are working well, and negative emotions show us that something is wrong. This kind of information is crucial to critical thinking thus an incredibly valuable asset to women [2]. Women are also known to be better at communicating than men, thus their emotional intuition should be recognized for its utility [3].

Further, let's consider a scenario in which a man and woman were both up for a particular role. In situations where the woman was clearly more competent and qualified, to dismiss her candidacy on the basis of her sex would be a futile endeavor. It would be deliberately selecting the inferior individual which could inhibit and stifle the success of the overall goal. This is completely irrational in itself.

Pro offers us no reason to assume that women are "fickle," however, being open-minded and willing to comprimise is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it is probably a virtue in terms of governance. I also posit the notion that feminists are "filled with fury and intolerance" as an unsubstantiated assertion. Feminism aims to obtain equal rights and value for women in society; any so-called fury or intolerance is only in response to perceived inequality and oppression. Pro hasn't provided any examples of women using their authority to punish men.

Pro suggests that there is a government conspiracy to help women be independent of men in order to destroy nuclear families. First, let's acknowledge that the government (I assume we're talking about the U.S.) is comprised primarily of white males [4]. This means that "angry feminists" aren't only to blame for government policy. Indeed, men vote, so their considerations are taken into account and laws protecting single mothers stem from the views of society as a whole. Both men and women acknowledge that women, particularly mothers, deserve certain protections under the law. This includes receiving monetary support for child care. There is nothing about this notion that suggests women shouldn't be allowed to vote/hold power, considering these ideals are already in place despite a male-dominated political sphere of influence. The same logic applies to the abortion issue.

Pro writes, "When men were in charge of the family, society was much better." I'll assume for all intents and purposes that he's talking about society before the 1960s (when abortion was legalized and certain laws became more liberal). First, was society really better off prior to 1960? At that time, America embraced blatant racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and other oppressive ideals. It was considered legal and morally permissible to rape your wife or beat your children. If a girl was raised in a family where her father was abusive, psychologists note that the girl would typically grow up and marry a man who was also abusive. However women have learned over the past several decades that any kind of abuse, including verbal, emotional, financial and physical should not be tolerated. Women now having the social and legal support to terminate relationships that are unhealthy for them and their children should be considered beneficial for society, and our evolution to dismantle authority imposed by aggression.

Regardless, women having more independence in society and the repercussions thereof (for which you could argue both positive and negative, depending on the perspective) do not support the idea that women should not vote or hold office. Keep in mind that just because you are a woman does not mean you will necessarily hold a particular point of view. For instance, while a voting bloc for women is arguably apparent, it can grow or shrink depending on a host of factors: race, age, marital status, even geography. Grouping all women together and thinking they will vote a certain way (progressive or Democratic) is wrong. They are not a unified voting bloc [5].

---

Now that we can see Pro has thus far failed to meet his burden in verifying the resolution, I will make just a few key arguments outlining why women should be allowed to vote and hold authority.

In commerce, a report on global businesses called "Women Matter" by McKinsey and Company suggests that the firms where women are most strongly represented at board or top management levels are also the companies that perform best in terms of growth and earnings [6]. In politics, we know that women politicians tend to be among the most productive and persuasive ones in the country.

The American Journal of Political Science shows women do a better job at securing money for their home districts and shaping policy. They
sponsored more bills and attracted more co-sponsors than their male counterparts. The female politicians' bills also made it further through the legislative process and got more media attention. The authors say this is because women do a better job at "logrolling, agenda-setting, coalition building and other deal-making activities" [7].

Former president of Ireland, Mary Robinson notes "Women are actually more inclined towards that more modern leadership, which is collaborative problem-solving, enabling, consultative, not just trying to assert a kind of hierarchical power." Robinson is living proof that this feminine style of leadership can be both effective and popular. Halfway through her term as president, she had an unprecedented approval rating of 93% [8]. Here in the U.S., the majority acknowledge that women are competent enough to vote and hold office given our increasing attainment of higher-education and other social prestige [9].

Women see the world from a different vantage point than men and often seek to tackle different issues. When they are part of the decision-making process, a greater diversity of voices and perspectives are heard. This is beneficial to everyone.

[1] http://www.psychohistory.com...
[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
[3] http://cltampa.com...
[4] http://www.diversityjournal.com...
[5] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[6] http://www.mckinsey.com...
[7] http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com...
[8] http://bigthink.com...
[9] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...





Debate Round No. 2
warrior_for_truth

Pro

My opponent started off by saying that what I said were not facts. But this is just a cop-out. I cannot prove that an apple is healthier than a cheese buger, but most people are rational enough to know that eating a apple is much healthier than eating a cheese buger, without having absolute proof. A lot of women can't even decide what shoes to put on in the morning. It's the same with shopping. Women will spend ages in a shop. They will finally decide what to buy, then a few minutes later they will put it back on the shelf and look for something else. It drives me crazy. Men think in straight lines, women think in circles. I don't need to prove this. Some things are so obvious. But if my opponent is going to demand absolute proof, then I demand absolute proof for everything she has to say. I can play at that game, too.

My opponent claims that women are better at dealing with emotions. I disagree! I believe women are mentally stronger than men, but I also believe that women are emotionally immature. Their emotionas are very fickle, which leads them to make irrational decisions. This is why I believe they should not vote or have authority, because they make decisions based on their emotions, and their emotions can be immature and very fickle. When it comes to truth and rationality, we cannot go by our emotions, because our emotions can change. We have to go by logic, and women put their emotions before their logic. My opponent also said that women are better at communicating than men. However, unless my opponent can prove women use telepathy, I fail to see why women are better communicators.

My opponent says that "Feminism aims to obtain equal rights and value for women in society; any so-called fury or intolerance is only in response to perceived inequality and oppression." Most people stopped believing this lie a long time ago, yet this big lie still gets repeatedly told. Modern day feminism has nothing to do with eqaulity. It is a cult that is driven by man-hating women. Some modern day feminists have said things like, "Women will rule the world," "All men are rapists," "The curse of every mother is her own son." If feminism is about equality, why are the feminists not fighting for the equal rights of the father? Fathers today have very little rights, yet I see no outrage from the feminists. If my opponent is hell bent on spewing lies, then such a debate is meaningless.

My opponent goes on to say, "Both men and women acknowledge that women, particularly mothers, deserve certain protections under the law. This includes receiving monetary support for child care." But everybody knows that when the government says to women, "If you have a child, we'll pay for it, you don't need the father," that many women will take advantage of that. The governments and the liberals knew very well that once they changed the law to only benefit women, then women would take advantage of it. I once heard an MP on TV admit that father's should not get equal rights, and I can even post the video link if my opponent refuses to believe it. The governments deliberately changed the law to benefit women, because they new that women would use the law to their advantage, and as a result marriage and family would crumble.

My opponent then talks about how hard it was for women before the 1960's having very little rights. Well, in the 1960's women started to get more rights, where they could get more support if they were in abusive relationships. I have no problem with this. I don't think any woman should be forced to suffer abusive relationships. However, these changes that began in the 1960's did not stop. It continued to only focues on women's rights and has continued right up to our present time. We now live in a time where the law has made it very difficult for a father to get proper access to his children, even if he pays child support. Women can freely have an abortion, regardless of the reason. Married women can also sleep around, take the children, and go off with another man, yet the husband will still have very little rights. I see time and time again women using their children as a weapon, and I see no outrage from the feminists. I have no problem with women getting help if they are in abusive relationships, but the law has gone to the extreme where it tells women, "If you commit adultery and get a divorce, we will still support you. We will give you rights over the children and help empty your husbands bank account." This is the reason more and more men are avoiding marriage, but this was all part of the governments plan--to destroy marriage and family.

My opponent then went on to list some key arguments as to why women should vote. All she did was quote other people, but not a single shred of evidence was given. My main focus is on marriage and family, and I believe that the main reason marriage and family have become shadows of their former selves is a direct result of the law giving women a ridiculous amount of authority.

Danielle

Con

Pro says it's a "cop out" to expect that he provide sources and citations for things that he states are facts. Of course, facts are defined specifically as something that you can prove. If he can't prove it, they aren't facts. He writes, "I cannot prove that an apple is healthier than a cheese burger, but most of us are rational enough to know that an apple is much healthier... without having absolute proof." That of course is absurd. The reason people 'know' an apple is healthier than a cheese burger is because somewhere along the line, someone proved that it was. I can do so here by providing a list of the health benefits of apples [1] vs. the health risks of cheese burgers [2]. We have no reason to accept Pro's opinions as facts. By his own admission, he has no proof that what he says is accurate. Meanwhile, I have offered evidence proving his statements as inaccurate.

Pro hasn't provided a shred of evidence outside of anecdotal, first-hand, biased observation that suggest women "think in circles" while men think in "straight lines." He also suggests that women's "fickle" emotions make them more irrational than men. He doesn't acknowledge or address what I said about emotions helping in the rationalization process, and how/why being emotionally inept is a valuable asset. He also disregards my analysis regarding men being just as emotional than women, tending to display angry, volatile emotions and why that can be detrimental. Emotional men who act out of anger or aggression are far less logical than women who do not.

Pro hasn't proven that women aren't capable of thinking logically. Indeed that is a fallacy: a baseless assertion. Everyone exhibits different forms of intelligence. Examples include spatial, linguistic, existential, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, musical, athletic, etc. On balance, you might find that men tend to excel in say mathematical intelligence, while women exhibit superior skills of language. However, not all women are less capable than men at math, and likewise not all men are less capable than women to exhibit linguistic intelligence.

On average, women and men have essentially equal mental capacity, but different hormones, a different balance of white/gray matter, and different social expectations which all contribute to men and women possessing different cognitive strengths and weaknesses (again, on average). Once you start comparing people at an individual level, particularly in different cultures, it's nearly a crap shoot. The differentiation is very small. Even if it were not, I've already explained in the last round why acknowledging various perspectives of the world is important from both sexes. Pro completely disregarded those arguments.

Pro also denies my suggestion that women tend to be better at communicating than men, despite my cited source claiming otherwise. It notes, "Women are much more comfortable discussing a problem and considering alternative opinions. The [psych] ­test also found that women have better listening skills, which in turn aids their heightened ability to empathize with others." I have another source which provides scientific evidence explaining why my claim that women are better communicators is accurate. Because women are better at deciphering others' emotions, using language, and expressing their emotions amongst other strengths, this claim has been proven for the most part scientifically accurate though of course there are no absolutes [3].

Warrior disputes the claim that feminism seeks to attain equal rights/ advocate for equal value of women in society, claiming instead that it is a cult. As I said in the last round, this is an unsubstantiated assertion based on Pro's cherry-picking and misrepresentation of feminism's goals. Indeed feminists have fought for women throughout American history; examples include the suffrage movement, fighting for women to be able to own property, stricter laws against rape, the right to self-governance of their own body (whether Pro agrees with their decisions or not), etc. Feminism is about empowering women. Small groups of "angry, man hating" feminists do not represent feminism as a whole.

Pro then rants about how government programs incentivize women to raise children without a father. Not only is this untrue, it is irrelevant to the resolution as a contention explaining why women ought not be able to vote or hold power, so I'll dismiss it for the sake of brevity. As I said in the last round, the political sphere is dominated by males and yet Pro claims the government is already biased in favor of women. He ignores the reality that men currently help shape public policy, and the laws reflect the opinion of both men and women. Clearly not all men think like him, just as not all women disagree with him. Individuals regardless of sex or gender should have a say in determining the laws that dictate their lives. To suggest otherwise is oppressive.

Moreover, even if Pro could prove that men were "smarter" than women (which I've already proven as both scientifically and psychologically inaccurate), what if we extended the argument to only men with a certain IQ could vote? What if Pro did not meet this criteria? Further, what if we set an IQ limit for everyone regardless of sex? In that way, Pro's idea that only smart people should vote would be entirely dismantled if women met the standard (and surely some men would not).

In conclusion of his round, Pro brushes off every one of my proactive arguments. He writes, "My opponent then went on to list some key arguments as to why women should vote. All she did was quote other people, but not a single shred of evidence was given." That is a blatant lie. First, I provided a study which proved women tend to excel in business with empirical data. That's evidence. Second, I noted the American Journal of Political Science indicating women do a better job at securing money for their home districts and shaping policy. That's evidence. Third, I explained how traits women tend to exhibit on balance more often than men (such as collaborative problem solving) helped them as political leaders. That's evidence/ analysis. Extend all of these arguments.

Finally, extend my conclusion that women see the world from a different vantage point than men, and often seek to tackle different issues. When they are part of the decision-making process, a greater diversity of voices and perspectives are heard. This is beneficial to everyone, and is the crux of my argument that Pro must challenge or negate.

[1] http://www.besthealthmag.ca...
[2] http://healthyeating.sfgate.com...
[3] http://voices.yahoo.com...


Debate Round No. 3
warrior_for_truth

Pro

It seems that my opponent hasn't got the slightest idea of what evidence really is, so allow me to educate her. I know she won't listen, but it's worth a try:

Sources prove absolutely nothing. Any fool can quote a source and claim that this proves their opinion, but it doesn't. My opponent needs to prove that her sources are reliable and accurate, but she hasn't. For example, if I were to quote a source from a creationist website and make the claim that this proves creation, would any atheist accept that? Of course not! The people who write these sources are often biased, so I have no idea why my opponent, or anybody else, thinks that quoting sources is evidence. I could quote a source that says men are smarter than women. Is my opponent just going to accept that? Absolutely not! She would demand that I must prove the source to be true. All I'm doing is asking the same request. So far my opponent hasn't given a single iota of evidence that prove her sources to be reliable or accurate. It is exceedingly sly and deceptive to fool people into thinking that quoting sources counts as evidence. It does not! My opponent must prove that her sources are true, and so far she hasn't done that, nor is she going to.

My opponent then says I haven't "provided a shred of evidence outside of anecdotal, first-hand, biased observation that suggest women "think in circles" while men think in "straight lines." I urge any man to take a woman shopping and you will have proof that what I'm saying is true. Trying to prove this by quoting a source is ridiculous. I can easily do it, but is my opponent really going to accept such a source, especially if it is written by a man? I very much doubt it. Just take a woman shopping and you will have all the proof you need.

My opponent then goes on to say something very cunning. She says, "Pro hasn't proven that women aren't capable of thinking logically." I never said such a thing. It's possible for a woman to think logically, of course it is. My point is that women will usually put their emotions before their logic. And I'm not saying that women can't be as smart as men. Some women are very intelligent. However, when it comes to making decisions, women use emotions first and logic second.

My opponent then says, "Pro also denies my suggestion that women tend to be better at communicating than men, despite my cited source claiming otherwise." I repeat again, sources don't prove anything. How many times do I need to point this out? My opponent did not provide any evidence whatsoever that proves her source to be true. I can quote all kinds of crazy sources from biased websites. What does it prove? NOTHING! She claims that this [psych] ­test also found that women have better listening skills. Logic and common sense does not support this. Women do most of the talking but less of the listening. My opponent can quote all the sources in the world, but if she can't prove her sources to be true, then it's pointless. Like I said, people who write these sources are often biased, and these people are not infallible. I really wish my opponent would acknowledge this, but she doesn't.

My opponent then goes on to say that I "dispute the claim that feminism seeks to attain equal rights/ advocate for equal value of women in society, claiming instead that it is a cult." However, notice that my opponent did not address what I said about fathers. If feminists are only seeking equality, then where are the feminists when it comes the father's rights? The legal system will bow to the desires and the whims of the mother, yet father's are badly treated when it comes to having rights over the children. I've come across father's who are distraught that the legal system is giving them such little access to their children. Why is there no outcry from the feminist community? If feminists just want equality, why are they not fighting for father's rights? It's the same with domestic violence. I know of many men who suffer domestic violence, yet they don't get the same help and protection as women. Again, where are the feminists when it comes to men's rights? The idea that most feminists only want equality is a blatant lie that is repeatedly told, but I think most men have now become aware of this.

The governments have indeed used women to destroy the family unit. The culprits are the Secret Societies. These are people like the Rothchilds and the Rockefellers. These are the people who run the government. They also run the banks and the oil. They are multi-billionaires, and these are the people who control the governments. They are the forces in the shadows, and they also control the legal system. The agenda of these people is power and control. They wanted women to rely on the state instead of their own family. By doing this, it gave them more power and control over society. When the family unit is strong, the governments have less authority over people. The government and Secret Societies set up a system where women could rely on the state, where the father was not needed. The reason why fathers have very little rights over the children is because the governments often put corrupt judges into the legal system, because their agenda is to destroy the family unit and make women dependant on the government instead of the father. As a result, more and more fathers are not taking responsibility, and more and more mothers are choosing to rely on the legal system instead of their own family. Of course, my opponent will say that I have no evidence of this, but anybody who seriously believes that the governments and the mega rich Secret Societies have no agendas, such a person is deluded and out of touch with reality. Most people now know that the governments are corrupt. People don't need a internet source to know this.

My opponent then claims that she has proven scientifically that men are not smarter than women. Actually, she hasn't. All she has done is quote a few sources that haven't been proven to be accurate and reliable. Now, I'm not saying that men ARE smarter than women, I'm just saying that my opponent hasn't proven anything. She has only quoted sources, which any fool can do.

My opponent then accuses me of telling a blatant lie when I said that she hasn't provided any evidence for her claims. She then goes on to claim that her sources are evidence. No, they are not! I'll say it a million times if I have to: any fool can quote an internet source. I can quote a source that says there is scientific evidence that evolution is false. Would any atheist accept that? Of course they wouldn't. I can quote all kinds of sources that claims they are based on reliable studies. So what? It proves nothing. My opponent has repeatedly failed to prove any of her sources to be true. If I were to quote a load of sources that disagreed with all of my opponents arguments, is she just going to accept them as truth? I very much doubt it. So it's very cunning and deceptive of her to keep referring to sources as evidence. They are not! She might have other people fooled, but she hasn't fooled me.

And finally, women making decisions based on their emotions are not beneficial to anybody. It is a danger to society and must be opposed. If not, marriage and family will continue to decay.

Thanks

Danielle

Con

Pro claims that my sources "prove absolutely nothing." On the contrary, I provided studies which included factual evidence with empirical, observable data and scientific explanations as well as psychological and neurobiological details about why his claims were wrong. That is not the same as copy and pasting someone else's opinion from the internet, and using that as a "source" as Pro alludes all sources can amount to. As I explained in the last round, the difference between facts and opinions is that facts can be proven. I've backed up my facts with science, analysis, and thorough explanations. Meanwhile, Pro hasn't been able to back up his claims at all, and in fact says that he can't. Instead, he suggests that all you have to do is "take a woman shopping" and that alone will solidify his case. Clearly, my references which have been peer reviewed and subjected to scholarly scrutiny ought to hold more weight than a biased observation of some females.

In defense of my sources, Pro claims multiple times that I cannot prove that they are true. That is false. My sources should be accepted as true because of the research they used to draw conclusions. For example, consider the source of The American Journal of Political Science which outlines how women politicians tend to be more successful at securing money for their district, and passing legislation. Their conclusions are based on factual evidence: they can prove that women secured more money for their districts by simply looking up political facts and figures and comparing male vs. female achievement. It's not an "opinion" that women raised more money; it is a fact that you can look up. Similarly, the psychological studies are based on neurobiological comparisons between male and female brains. Again, these are not based on opinions, but observable data. Everything I have attributed to my sources should be considered factually accurate, since Pro never once disputed the information I provided and instead challenged the idea that facts can even exist.

While Pro acknowledges that women are capable of being both smart and thinking logically, he insists that they put emotions before rationalization in the decision making process. Once again, this disregards all of the points I have made outlining exactly how and why having a good understanding of emotions is actually important in the decision making process. He also once again ignored my points that 1) men exhibit different emotions more strongly than women, including anger which is detrimental to the decision making process; 2) there are various forms of intelligence which are different according to each individual, and cannot be grouped so massively according to sex. Gender is fluid with arbitrary distinctions based on culture and other variables.

Pro continues, "If feminists are only seeking equality, then where are the feminists when it comes the father's rights?" First, I've explained several times that this is not relevant to the resolution. Please extend my arguments regarding current public policy being shaped and influenced by both men and women in society. As such, it doesn't prove that eliminating women from the voting process would yield a different political outcome. Second, Pro disregards my contention that feminists seek to attain certain rights for women. This does not mean taking away or inhibiting the rights of men. Feminists come in all forms and each have different priorities. Securing the rights of a father are typically not among them. Similarly, regarding domestic violence, over 95% of cases of domestic violence involve the female being abused. If men want to be proactive in securing certain protections, they should be free to form their own coalitions to do just that.

However, a key point of the debate can be seen here: Pro thinks that feminists advocating on behalf of the advancement of their sex is detrimental to society. This proves my point that keeping women out of the voting process, and allowing only men to have influence over governance is also detrimental. That means there may be no group advocating on behalf of half the population, women, or considering what issues might be important or prevalent to them. It is also oppressive as they have no voice or say in the laws that dictate and determine their culture and often protect their livelihood.

Pro then talks about the Secret Societies influencing (manipulating) the government. Living in a democratic republic, part of the voting process means that the voices of the people are heard through their vote. We have every reason to believe that people's votes and not a government conspiracy has dictated public policy. Further, Pro completely failed to explain how not allowing women to vote or hold power would somehow eliminate the power and influence of these alleged secret societies. Why wouldn't they have control even if women did not have a say? Isn't their manipulative power also held over male voters? This is one of many flaws in Pro's case. He hasn't explained why so-called corrupt judges would not be appointed even if women could not vote.

In conclusion, Pro has completely failed to meet his burden. He hasn't proven that men think more logically than women-- I've dismantled that notion. Additionally, he hasn't negated or even responded to many of my arguments. Please extend them all. I've proven:

- It's not true that men are smarter or more rational than women
- It's not true that men's judgment isn't clouded by detrimental emotions (such as anger)
- Women's emotions often facilitate the rationalization process
- Women tend to possess traits that make them successful leaders (such as a willingness for collaboration)
- Cultural differences dictate different societal norms for men and women
- Women have different but equally valuable strengths
- Feminism has benefited society
- Current policy might still be the same even if women didn't vote
- We have evidence of women's success in business and politics
- Women have a different vantage point than men; inclusion is important for everyone
- Not allowing women to have a say in the law is oppressive

Thank you



Debate Round No. 4
106 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by steakdoll 1 year ago
steakdoll
A society can't be democratic without universal suffrage for all those of legal age. The decisions that elected officials make affect everyone, regardless of sex. Kind of funny how warrior_for_truth talks about men being more logical, when his own debate is illogical
Posted by kirstiethecrazycatlady 1 year ago
kirstiethecrazycatlady
This debate is rather funny to be honest. I have huge respect for Danielle being so polite to Pro and level headed in this debate because to be honest I would find it hard not to laugh. The view is quite simply sexist, narrow minded, out dated and I reckon they are just pulling our leg.
Posted by robGRAUERT 1 year ago
robGRAUERT
@warrior_for_truth

I have made it through about 2/3 of the comments of this debate and your comments are silly.

Danielle needs to prove that her sources are true? If that were the case and if she succeeded in doing so, you would further insist that she prove the validity of those new sources that prove the validity of the sources that support her initial claims. And you would keep going on and on insisting that your opponent prove the validity of their sources. You're a moving goal post.

It isn't necessarily your opponent's role to prove the validity of their sources, but rather your role to prove why their sources are incorrect or fallacious in some way.
Posted by morgan2252 1 year ago
morgan2252
It's funny how "common sense" has changed over the years. Today, it's "common sense" that mercury is toxic. However, it takes time for it to start to affect you, and it took time for people to discover that it could kill you. Probably, before it was confirmed to be toxic, many thought that it was just "common sense" that it wasn't poisonous.

Common sense isn't a valid answer for anything. Scientific facts are.
Posted by Double_R 1 year ago
Double_R
Warrior for truth, debate me on it. Since I am so thick headed it should be easy for you to beat me. We can set it up with 8,000 character rounds, which I calculate will allow you to repeat your argument 52 times each round. That will convince the judges.
Posted by Man-is-good 1 year ago
Man-is-good
"Double_R, I have to repeat myself because you refuse to understand my point."
It's better to substantiate a point than to repeat it like some sort of holy dictum or mantra, sir. :)
Posted by Blacksnake 1 year ago
Blacksnake
LOL interesting debate...
Posted by warrior_for_truth 1 year ago
warrior_for_truth
Double_R, I have to repeat myself because you refuse to understand my point. If my opponent refuses to prove her sources to be reliable, then that is not my fault. Undersatand?
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I'd like to see a Double_R/Warrior debate. Should be fun to read.
Posted by Double_R 1 year ago
Double_R
Warrior for truth, repeating yourself over and over again does not make you right. If you are in fact right about this particular issue then everything I just said is nonsense. So can you show how what I just said is nonsense? No, so you just repeat the same message. This means one of two things: A) You are wrong, or B) you are right but have no idea how to express that through communication, in other words, you are inferior at debating. That is what votes determine, and the score in this one is accurate.

Perhaps when you understand what I just said you will be on your way to understanding why your BoP claim fails miserably. If you still don't think so then answer one very simple question: What is a debate?
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
warrior_for_truthDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's 'arguments' were nothing more then his own opinions that he asserts as facts that are riddled with horrific logic. Danielle completely dismantled the pro's arguments and since the pro had the burden of proof to prove that women shouldnt be allowed to vote (and fialed miserably in trying to prove that) arguments go to con. Sources go to con to since she used numerous reliable sources. Conduct to con too since in the comments pro treats everyone like a complete dick.
Vote Placed by Double_R 1 year ago
Double_R
warrior_for_truthDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros case was merely a rant against women with no justification for the resolution. Con adequately pointed out that emotions are a necessary aspect in all decision making and that the emotions men often turn to in that process are more detrimental then those of women. His arguments towards current policy giving advantages to women are invalid as Con points out, because those very policies are in place as a result of a male dominated legislature. And Pros secret societies argument was laughable, for its only conclusion is that none of our votes will change anything, rendering this entire debate pointless. Sources is obvious, and enough has been said about that.
Vote Placed by One_Winged_Rook 1 year ago
One_Winged_Rook
warrior_for_truthDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I give conduct and sources to CON... And although her arguments were better than pro, I can't give her the points because I think they are flawed heavily as well
Vote Placed by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
warrior_for_truthDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Bold, unsubstantiated, unwarranted, ungrounded assertions comprised the beginning and end of PRO's case. CON respectfully eviscerated in kind. The moral victory is Danielle's, for obvious reasons. The logical victory is CON's, as described above. The sources follow in kind.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 1 year ago
Microsuck
warrior_for_truthDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used eidence and source s Mpst of pro's arguments were assertions and had no evidence to back it up.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
RoyLatham
warrior_for_truthDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not have facts to back up his assertions. He should have found some studies, examples, or expert opinion. The web has evidence for everything, though some is more convincing others. Pro just didn't meet the burden of proof.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 1 year ago
Man-is-good
warrior_for_truthDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: (See RFD in the comments.) Normally, I wouldn't provide a point, but since Pro instead seems to rely on his observations and posited scenarios, in place of supposedly biased sources that he distrusts and demands to be proven and justified as objective and as correct, vicariously, so to speak, I'll offer Danielle a cession of points for sources since Pro's own foundational material, for his "case," is his own realization as a substitute for what one would normally use to supplement, let alone substantiate, an argument, proposition, etc.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 1 year ago
The_Master_Riddler
warrior_for_truthDanielleTied
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: pro had assertions not good arguments
Vote Placed by Luggs 1 year ago
Luggs
warrior_for_truthDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments and sources to Con. Pro had baseless assertions, and used no sources whatsoever. Conduct to Con because Pro insulted women by saying "A lot of women can't even decide what shoes to put on in the morning".
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 1 year ago
wrichcirw
warrior_for_truthDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: see voluminous comments