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

Gender neutrality

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,002 times Debate No: 74031
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




The point is the total disconnect people have developed in this preposition considering the lesser or higher of one gender to another. It is literally sick, this oligarchic patriarchal stereotype women have pressured onto young girls telling them they are just as capable as boys as women are to men and equally the effeminating of boys. As a man I can only imagine the amount of stress this places on young women through their lives. Men have adapted well to building, creating, killing, destroying, rebuilding, all by the means of contributing to the betterment of the world, not for himself, but his family. Boys and girls think only of themselves, that is natural, but men never think only of themselves and that is simply how its been. Now we want to integrate women into the world of the masculine, no! Why do women think when they come home from their job they are still expected to clean, take care of the children, and cook? It is because men will not separate themselves from the hereditary jurisdiction which only can provide stability and unity among a nation. If men separate themselves from this natural barrier and allow for the "equality" of genders, society will fall apart. There will be genetic chaos and rampant homosexuality. Without distinction between genders society as we know it will not survive, cannot survive. Therefore, men in their innate need to protect women will do all he can to provide for her safety and comfort, because if he fails to protect her, he will die himself; perhaps not physically nor immediately, but his soul will certainly die, crushed and empty.
Upon this basis is it not logical that men would have rights to govern society, the workplace, and the home. In modeling, women make 80% more than men. Is this fair, why do men not rise up in anger at society for paying women more than men in the fashion industry? Why not, because men have dealt with ten times worse the hardship through human history to even consider unequal pay something to fight over. In the United States, this countries social structure was developed specifically to cater to the individualist model. The United States was built on free market economics (not slavery). The country was built on a single man"s motivation to provide for his family and the betterment of society. Government did not build this country; the corporations did not build this country. Your great grandfather and his fathers before him built this country, not the effeminate, not homosexuals. Men built this country, men built every country. We did not do this for women cowering in fear to over-through the laws which make us free. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It does not profess government power; we are free men, absolute, and sovereign beings. We men did not go into battle, kill, and die for you women to sell everything we have fought to establish law before the power structures of the world. It was never about keeping women from voting. Only men were to vote to protect the American culture of individualism and protect the liberties we have fought and bled to preserve for our children. Men were, and very much still are the head of the household, and therefore it was one vote per house hold. It's not about oppression, it was never about oppression. Why would men oppress that which he loves more than anything before God? What is the meaning of life if not to transcend our earthy world? What is the point if not to become more intelligent? Yes, it is about infrastructure, but also to expand in conciseness and become that which we once were before antiquity. We were created in the image of God, we are pure energy beings. We are celestial and divine creations. We are not merely flesh and bone, we are not animals.
So I ask, do homosexual rights and women's rights create anything, build anything, or contribute anything to the betterment of society. Do these issues inspire people to colonize space, do they motivate people to build a business or provide a service to society, and do you think these issues should continue to be continuously shoved down the throat of men and women across the world daily? Do you really want to continue arguing for these cases or instead motivate your boys to become astronauts or motivate them to end all disease or discover the next generation propulsion systems or clean perpetual energy systems? Can we stop focusing on endless debates and get back to discussing the development of significant technologies. We do not need any more telephones; we don't need smart televisions, or enhanced entertainment or video games. Let"s return to what's important and what will lead mankind beyond what we ever thought possible.


I thank Pro for instigating the debate & I accept the challenge.


- The burden of proof is on Pro.

Best of Luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Please provide for me the lack of evidence so we may continue this debate. If you cannot provide for the "burden of proof" why challenge my point if not to discredit my objection? Please, provide for me something intelligent.

Thank you


I thank Pro for submitting his 2nd round.


- Gender Neutrality: the idea that policies, language, and other social institutions should avoid distinguishing roles according to people's sex or gender [*].

- I shall remind the voters that the BOP is on Pro.

- Besides the fact that Pro’s whole case is a bare assertion fallacy, for which he provides no evidence whatsoever, it is also off topic. There is not a single word denoting gender neutrality (nor any related ideas) in Pro’s entire case. There is literally nothing to argue against here.

- Therefore, I shall await Pro’s arguments for Gender Neutrality so that I can refute them.

[*] Wikipedia.

Debate Round No. 2


hegiliansdialect forfeited this round.



1. Pro has not showed why he agrees with Gender Neutrality, nor has he shown why we should also agree.

2. Pro’s entire case is bare assertions, as he provided no evidence whatsoever for what he presented.

3. Pro’s case is largely unrelated to his resolution, as there is not one single contention that argues for Gender Neutrality! If there are any, it’s distinctly for the opposite of the resolution: “Without distinction between genders society as we know it will not survive, cannot survive.”

4. Pro thus failed to carry his BOP.

5. Pro also forfeited his 3rd round, warranting him a penalty in Conduct.

=> Therefore, it’s clear Pro lost the debate, in both in Arguments & Conduct. Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Yassine 3 years ago
@ hegiliansdialect

- Man, you're taking this too seriously. If you wish to have a serious debate about Gender Neutrality, then by all means, challenge me, & I will respond, granted we agree on the rules of the debate.
Posted by hegiliansdialect 3 years ago
For the simplicity of the government educated, absolutely. For others the debate is according to statement, my targeted audience is of your like mind. My purpose however was to validate for myself and future visitors your readiness to end the debate. It is the psychology of of the state funded man under the microscope, gender neutrality was to instigate intellectual argument. An argument you proven unwilling to challenge, but instead shut down; thus defining the left basis on induvidualist free thought.
Posted by Yassine 3 years ago
@ hegiliansdialect

- This is a debate, & you're Pro. To win, you'd have to argue for Gender Neutrality, for you're Pro. Unfortunately, you didn't! It's not about what's safe & familiar, it's about which side of the debate is stronger. :)
Posted by hegiliansdialect 3 years ago
Yes, let's vote according to what is safe and familiar. Let's dare not contradict the the pop-narrative.
Posted by Yassine 3 years ago

- Dude, you're the best :-)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Espera 3 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: There are good and bad points to gender neutrality so I was tied at the beginning - and there was no actual debate so I remain tied although Pro's position was so illogical it might as well have pushed me to Con. Con actually made readable, logical points related to the topic and he did not forfeit a round. So he gets conduct and s&g. However, neither did much in terms of sources or actual arguments so that's a tie.