The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Womens in India should avoid using the dress showing their body parts outside.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,841 times Debate No: 24345
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




Women in India should avoid using the dress showing their body parts, structure,etc. becouse these are tempting men to attack them and the womens are talking against men while doing this.



Should will refer to "obligation or duty"[1]. That means in order to show that anyone should do anything, one must show why they have some sufficient reason to do it whereby a legitimate obligation is created.

The rest of the resolution is self-explanatory and I doubt my opponent will employ any semantics. I will also refrain from doing so as I don't see it as necessary to win this debate.


*Refutation of Pro*

My opponent's first contention attempts to employ a complete misrepresentation of moral causality and unjustifiably equivocates it with regular causality. For instance, we would not say that a rock has has performed a morally causal action if it rolls down a hill and kills someone at the bottom. This is because there is a clear distinction between actions which only have a generically causal effect and actions which have a morally causal effect. The rock's effect on the person it killed was generically causal in that it would not be held responsible for the action and thus a morally relevant obligation is not existent. Stated more clearly in conjunction with human actions though, an example will be helpful/

Stated more clearly, the responsibility for a morally relevant action lies with the person who imposes their irrational preference on others. The Jews were not responsible for the Holocaust because they chose to be Jewish or chose to remain within Nazi territory although this certainly played a generically causal role. The culprits who were morally responsible for such an atrocity were the ones who took that specific characteristic and believed it to grant them moral permissibility in employing force and aggression against the Jews. My opponent in his contention fails to distinguish between something causing something and something having a moral relevancy in causing something.

Contention II. "the womens are talking against men while doing this".

In his second contention, my opponent argues from the hidden presupposition that women have a moral obligation to obey men and that since some men have commanded them to not show body parts outside of their dress, they have a moral obligation to obey. This contention is wrong on many levels but I will only bring up two in this debate.

Refutation A. Mutually incompatible demands. Different men have different opinions on the subject of whether women ought to show body parts or not. Many men in the Western world with more socially liberal values are of the opinion that there is no obligation of women to hide their bodies and that the true injustice is forcing them to do so under the threat of force. My opponent has generalized all men as having dominion over all women and thus is open to the criticism that any man can then easily counteract any other man's command to a women. Seeing as this is a reductio though it more shows the unreasonableness of my opponent's unsupported presupposition.

Refutation B. Lack of legitimate gender dominion. As I said at the beginning of my refutation, my opponent's point of dominion is the result of a hidden presupposition which he has utterly failed to defend and has merely assumed into his argument. Of course, this is not acceptable in debate and since my opponent has failed to qualify his supposition with rational argument, there is no reason to adopt it or treat it seriously. Summarizing Christopher Hitchens, since it has been purported without evidence we may discard it without evidence.

The resolution has been negated. I now pass the debate back over to Pro.


Debate Round No. 1


I am so proud of you, that you are a person of 17 years old. you just realised that, i am saying about the whole womens. I am not. I am saying about Indian social womens. In western countries, womens are individuals. But till now 90% of Indaian women are not so. Still there is no equality between them. In my home state, Kerala, the Gods own country, there is no equality between men and women. many rape cases and other exploitation of women are still reporting daily. Even 6 months baby were also killed at a rape attempt.

As the political leaders didnt take any methods, it is difficult to change mens mind. But inorder to decrease this we can imply my method of using dress.
Another factor is, in western countries, if one girl wearing sexy dress, she will be appreciated by atleast one. but here women can wear such dress, someone also doing now, the whole society will realise that she is a sex interested girl. some men will try to rape her, if he got chance.
Another type of girls, wears attractive dress and says"I am not actually mean to wear that, it just happened."
Any way, if you want to defeat me just make some arguments or if you want to know more just visit our country, not just towns villages too. Thank you.


Personal response: Wut.

Contention I. Women and Moral Causation.

I would first like to point out that my opponent dropped my refutation of his C1 wherein I showed that there was no obligatory moral connection between a woman wearing a dress showing her body and being assaulted by a man. The obligatory moral connection lies solely with the person either ignorant enough to get angry at such a display or animalistic enough not to be able to control their sexual urges.

My opponent's argument rests on the presupposition that the irrationality of some men in their country obliges them to change their style of dress. He takes an immoral action and traces the cause to Indian women showing skin when they go out. However, as I clearly showed in my R1 refutation (and which my opponent has dropped) is that there is a difference between moral and generic causation. Women who are raped may be said to have some sort of generic causation in their rapes. However, they absolutely do not have any moral causation. The moral causation lies with the agent who willfully decides to rape someone and thus the immorality of the action in question passes on to them an obligation to refrain. The obligation lies with the rapist, not the victim.

To explain the difference let me explain. If my opponent has added the conditional "if they do not want to get raped" at the end of the resolution then my opponent might be able to make a sufficient case. The case would move out of the ethical realm and into the practical realm of how to avoid being raped in India. However, since there is no such condition in the resolution we must abide by a naked, common sense reading of the resolution and hold Pro to his BoP in establishing a legitimate moral obligation on the part of Indian women. This naked reading states that women have a categorical (i.e. moral) obligation to dress differently. And my opponent has not defended this.

Contention II. Women and Gender Domination.

My opponent's defense of his second contention is a bit confusing, most likely due to the language differences between him and I. I assume English is not your first language. But anyways, from what I can tell my opponent equivocates ethically justified actions with the reality of social conditions. For instance, in my last refutation I argued that men have no legitimate dominion over women vis a vis their being men and women respectively. My opponent shifts strategies and moves to the practical realm in which he tries to change the scope of this debate to deal with practical considerations regarding the avoidance of rape. However, as I explained in my C1 refutation, the resolution reads as arguing for a categorical obligation on the part of women. We are not dealing with practical considerations based on the best way to attain a goal, but are dealing with legitimate or illegitimate obligation on the part of women.
Debate Round No. 2


The actual cause of rape is not the dressing of women. My opponent didn't have much knowledge about Indian culture. Also Indian women. I am not trying to make sure that such dressing pattern creates rape.
Wearing a dress, which showing tempting body parts of female, is to attract men. When the men who attacted to them, will appear infront of them. some men tries to touch certain parts, which were projected by using tit dress. Then the Indian womens says that"I actually not mean to wear this to attract men." It is a true fact that, in India men sees such dressing is to attract men. It cannot can be seen in western countries. In western countries women wearing sexy dress did'nt try to hide their actual needs.
Only things to do to a country like India are,
*1. If wearing sexy dress, women must accept that, what they actually mean. If so the country should give more hard punishment to men who attack women.
The women should wear 'parduh' which covers whole body.
Another factor is, in India culture sex is a bad thing.
My opponent still taking world women, and not Indian women as topic. He better watch the movie 'OUT SOURCED' which is a good example for some Indian culture.


My opponent argues that my analysis only applies to American women and that his argument rests on the application of it to Indian women. I fail to see however how Indian culture or society refute my points. Let me summarize them below:

(1) There is a difference between generic and moral causation.
(2) Legitimate obligation only applies to actions in which one creates moral causation.
(3) Women only create generic causation by wearing clothes which show skin.
(4) It is the men who rape them that create moral causation.
(5) Therefore it is men who have an obligation not to rape women and not women who have an obligation not to wear clothes showing skin.

The resolution also implies a categorical obligation as opposed to a hypothetical one. A categorical obligation refers to one that someone has regardless of their values. A hypothetical obligation only applies to someone with specific values e.g. If one wants to survive THEN one ought to eat something. The resolution however doesn't provide any implication of a hypothetical obligation and thus based off of a naked reading we must assume categorical obligation from the word 'should'.
Debate Round No. 3


raifal forfeited this round.


Dude forfeited. Extend refutation. Also, since there is nothing productive being provided in this round, enjoy the music.
Debate Round No. 4


Feeling so sorry about you.


Seeing as there were no arguments or rebuttals brought by Pro in the last two rounds, coupled with the fact that I successfully refuted his argument via the distinction between generic and moral causation, I urge a Con vote. Enjoy Binary Star.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
I really couldn't understand most of what the guy was saying due to the language barriers.
Posted by tulle 6 years ago
"Personal response: Wut."

Posted by tulle 6 years ago
Favourited to vote on later.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tulle 6 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 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: This is pretty self-explanatory. I'm going to assume English is not Pro's first language, so spelling/grammar obviously to Con. I gave conduct to Con because Pro not only forfeited, but also (rather than presenting arguments) simply said he feels sorry for Con lol. Arguments are a no-brainer.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 6 years ago
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: ff plus socialpinko utterly demolished the Pro