The Instigator
delapruch
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
alex0828
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Women's Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,839 times Debate No: 17720
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (8)

 

delapruch

Pro

Ameneh Bahrami's face was burnt off, blinding her forever, when Majid Mohavedi poured a bucket of acid on her after she declined his marriage proposal in 2004. For 7 years she had been seeking a qisa, available in Iran through Sharia Law, which would allow her have the same damage inflicted upon him for what he had done to her---"an eye for an eye," etc. As this case gained international attention in the past 7 years, Mohavedi's fate was postponed in April of 2009, and was due to be carried out in May of this year. It was again postponed, but today, Ameneh Bahrami pardoned the man.

Religion is the real catalyst in this story, and it has been again swept under the rug yet again. As women in this world still presently suffer the violent misogyny brought on by the prospective works of poorly written fiction, one has to wonder if true progress for women is even possible in a world where religion is relevant. These lies produced thousands of years ago were written by MEN for MEN and they still perpetuate a MALE DOMINATED WORLD today.

Eradicate religion so that Women can attain equality in the world.
alex0828

Con

Sharia Law is an extreme form of Islam in which women have the lowest level of rights possible. It is an interpretation of the Koran by those who wish to follow it that way. Islam is definitely one of the religions that is more sexist than most, considering that women have to conceal themselves in public. But, how does this reflect on all religions? I am a Christian, in the Bible it explains that God created "Man" in his image, by man he actually meant humans in general. In the story of creation, the reason that he took a rib from adam to create eve, and not a bone from his foot or head, was to show that Adam and Eve were equal. For Example, in the Bible, a woman named Deborah became a judge and the LEADER of Israel. Sexism? I think not.
Debate Round No. 1
delapruch

Pro


“eve,”created less than “adam,” is blamed concerning “the serpent” and “god” condemns women to horrible pain during childbirth and complete submission to men (gen. 3:12-3:17). They’re the property of men (ex. 20:17), unclean for 33 days after birthing a girl (lev. 12:1-5) and burned for disobeying their fathers (21:9). Raped virgins must marry their rapists, but rapists only pay fathers “50 shekels of silver (deut. 22:28-29)”. Sexist “jesus” likens “heaven” to virgins looking for a bridegroom (math. Ch. 25). Women are created in the image of MAN and inferior (I cor. 11:3-11:9). “deborah” is one of 7 female “prophets” as opposed to 48 males in the tanakh and the only female judge found there---ONE RESPECTED WOMAN still blamed for the fall.


alex0828

Con

My opponent has brought up a few points related to the Old Testament and also a point about Jesus being sexist. Firstly, Jesus was not sexist, he actually treats women differently then most men did at that time. He actually treated them with respect, which was partially unheard of at the time. A prime example is the woman at the well, when he asked her if he could drink from the well, she was in disbelief that he, a man, would even acknowledge her. An even better would be the adulteress brought to Jesus by the religious leaders, instead of condemning her as they had. He admonished her to stay away. Also, submission to a woman's husband means under the will of God, for example, coming with him to Church, otherwise she is not obligated.
Debate Round No. 2
delapruch

Pro

This debate is not about the fictional character of “jesus.” As there is no physical evidence for its existence, points concerning it as a PERSON are moot. The christian cult that acts on its behalf oppresses women, and THAT is what needs to go. All monotheistic religious texts were written by MEN so that MEN can have their way. When a young boy is raped by a catholic priest, we don’t say that “jesus” did it, we acknowledge that a christian did it, just as we don’t say the character of “muhammad” poured acid on Ameneh Bahrami’s face. Without the contexts set up by religious authority in the world, these actions would not thrive. Women would have much better chance at equality once no MAN could use religion as an excuse.
alex0828

Con

Notice how pro mentions Jesus and then when I defend him, Pro completely avoids that subject and reinstates their round 1 argument. I cannot defend Islam because there is sexism in it. Christianity though, The New Testament is not sexist as I showed in my round 2 argument, it is the new covenant brought to us by Jesus, the Old Testament was made when times were different. Here is some proof that the Bible is not sexist. Jesus openly identified himself to the women at the well, he did not do this for a man. John 4:25-26'The woman said to him: "I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one arrives, he will declare all things to us openly." Jesus said to her: "I who am speaking to you am he."
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alex0828 5 years ago
alex0828
this is odd, we were tied at 11 then when Manisgood gives me 5 points im at 14?
Posted by alex0828 5 years ago
alex0828
@crackrocks read the debate before you vote, just some advice. Giving someone 2 points for sourcing when they cited no sources proves bias,
Posted by alex0828 5 years ago
alex0828
Thats true, the thing is that delapruch used sort of a dirty tactic. Misleading me as to what we were debating about,and I guess I went along with it
Posted by CGBSpender 5 years ago
CGBSpender
What I mean is that you spent the entire debate arguing specifics from two religions. You didn't need to engage him on any of the specifics from any religion. All you needed to do (in the entire debate) is show that the sexist specifics of one or two religions is a different claim from "religion is sexist and should be banned". His burden of proof was impossibly high.
Posted by alex0828 5 years ago
alex0828
What do you mean by that exactly? I shouldn't have made a round 3 argument?
Posted by CGBSpender 5 years ago
CGBSpender
@alex0828 all you really had to do was point out that he was arguing against a straw man and that only a small part of the resolution had even been considered. That would have been enough to win. That is perfectly viable within your word limit.
Posted by alex0828 5 years ago
alex0828
Freedo, the burdon of proof falls on the Pro, I played the cards I was dealt, i had a 750 character limit, which was absurd. And as con i had to dispute Pros argument points, in which he rambled and avoided my arguments.
Posted by CGBSpender 5 years ago
CGBSpender
The entire debate was irrelevant to the resolution. You guys needed to debate "religion" not specific religions (maybe as examples but that's it). Showing that there is sexism in a few religions is not enough, what needed to be shown is that this sexism is a necessary part of religion as a whole and so banning is the only way to have social progress. With all this being said, you failed to call him out on this Con.
Posted by alex0828 5 years ago
alex0828
Double_R, delapruch avoided my argument and reinstated his first round argument, he brought no new cards to the table in round 3 except Jesus being nonexistent. That is not an argument, that is just delapruch exercising his animosity towards Christianity.
Posted by alex0828 5 years ago
alex0828
Why would you vote for him then?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
delapruchalex0828Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Horrible debate. Neither side cited sources for justification, and so on. I award Con points of conduct (Pro was rather rude in regards with his 'eve' argument) and 'spelling and grammar'. However, Con did note the inaccuraccies in Pro's arguments, so I found his arguments more convincing.
Vote Placed by hauki20 5 years ago
hauki20
delapruchalex0828Tied
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 Checkmark-1 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: con argued better. i support women's rights, but unfortunately this debate degraded into a discussion over religions.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
delapruchalex0828Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither actually debated the subject at hand. Terrible debate.
Vote Placed by CGBSpender 5 years ago
CGBSpender
delapruchalex0828Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro does not actually ever support their claim that it would be necessary to eliminate "religion" in order for society to move forward. Showing that there is sexism in two religions is hardly enough to show that sexism is a necessary part of religion itself. In fact, there are many pagan religions that are matriarchal. With that being said, Con got caught up in this terrible debate and got distracted. Pro made a lot of loaded irrelevant statements and so Con gets the conduct.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
delapruchalex0828Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros case had nothing to do with the title of his resolution, but Con seems to accept the premise. However Con then continues to make arguments that were irrelevant to the accepted premise of the debate.
Vote Placed by crackrocks 5 years ago
crackrocks
delapruchalex0828Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: To say that the Christian bible isn't rooted in patriarchy is completely misread the text. But that's irrelevant, Pro had more sources and some empirical examples.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
delapruchalex0828Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Strange debate. Pro argued religion is the cause of inequality. Con argued some religions are OK. Both sides therefore support women's rights. No argument was made for or against the topic, but since both sides accepted the topic was true, the side that was supposed to be affirming woman's rights wins. Advice to con: don't attack the method, attack the principle behind the motion. Pro loses conduct for not making an argument.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
delapruchalex0828Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fails to establish their case that all religion is inspired by men and is intrinsically misogynistic, nor that it's destruction would ensure female equality or even that such a goal is desirable. Their examples are restricted solely to Iranian Islam (which is self-contradictory because the misogynistic act was illegal and a punishment was handed down) and Christianity. This is not sufficient to establish the BOP and Con's arguments are ignored.