Attention: is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Should women be enslaved to benefit the success of men?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 8/14/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,192 times Debate No: 117713
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Men need all the support they can get to succeed. If every man had 1-2 women as slaves they could be more productive. The women could get their bags, Do the laundry, And do his shopping. If the man wishes they can make a child to multiply and replenish the earth. Men need to be more of a focus in this society so they can focus on new inventions, Cures to disease, And progressing the planet. How often does a women do any of that? Pretty much never. If we enslave them they will be able to give the support to the men that they need to benefit our world. If in 100 years we have a better world then sure they can have rights but as of now they are ruining the world and bringing down the empowerment of men.


The term 'enslavement' involves two different things.

1) to force someone to remain in a bad situation
2) to control someone's actions, thoughts, emotions, Or life completely
https://dictionary. Cambridge. Org/dictionary/english/enslave

The issue with societies that aimed to enslave is not only that they consistently ended up being overthrown and/or the leaders, While still 'in charge' by a large degree get tamed byt the people (such as Cuba and Egypt) North Korea (which I will happily prove in Round 2 if called out on it) but that there's fundamentally an issue with how this inhibits natural selection of alpha males.

Lions, As a species, Are a prime example of how a patriarchy can end up being feminist. Lion females take charge of the hunting and decide who they submit to sexually and psychologically as a group (but the alpha ensures the alpha male keeps her as his favorite by being vicious to other females who try to seduce him). [2] In fact this idea of 'females dominating and then letting men take charge anyway' is present in bears too. [1][3] In fact in brown bears, The females get most turned on by males who have proven to eat their own children because those males tend to pass on the 'raw dominance' genes onto the children and the females who didn't have a fetish for such males had their offspring gradually die out. [3]

The issue with a society based on females being forcibly dominated by males in itself is that the actually dominant men have no means by which to ensure it's their genes that are the one that get passed on, The reason being that there will be nepotism and unfair hierarchy among the men in the patriarchal circle rigging who gets to mate with the most women the most times and their wealth will end up negating the entire purpose behind this.

What you would find is that if we said 2 men for every women but didn't enslave them, You'd see 'dominant gene' men far more likely to be the ones to raise children well in a long lasting relationship with metnally healthy and unabused women.

http://www. Bbc. Co. Uk/earth/story/20160624-we-have-the-wrong-idea-about-males-females-and-sex
https://theinsatiabletraveler. Com/2015/12/20/the-subtle-dance-of-dominance-and-submission-in-the-masai-mara-kenya/
https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560043/
Debate Round No. 1


Very valid points. Well done my guy. You were so close to defeating me. Not this time! I'm back like never before: a warrior, A monster, And a communist. Hey man you do realize if Trump wanted to (which he is very much considering) he could take over the country and implement this himself. My father talked to him in the white house about a month ago and he is really digging the plan. People say he can't just do that but trust me. Government is corrupt and he has the money to make it happen in a heartbeat, A heartbeat you won't be experiencing after you get destroyed in this debate. Boom Roasted. Come back from that one bihhhh


In the entire Round Two you notice no extension from Round One to Round Two.
Neither Pros Round One has been reaffirmed not has my Round One been rebuked.

I will reiterate the biggest points:
1) Other than North Korea, There has never been an enslavement level tyranny that hasn't ended up overthrown and/or tamed. This makes it reliably, Consistently unsustainable as a societal system of organising people.

2) It would make far more sense to encourage animalistic patriarchy where alpha males can impregnate many women who consent and fight over the male's attention. The reason this is key to this debate is that Pro is advocating for sexism based on male dominance but the system Pro us using in no way at all ensures it is the dominant males that have their genes
passed on more than the poorly gened men. Equally, The system encourages the most pathetic, Self loathing females to be the ones whose DNA combines with the males resulting in very suboptimal DNA gambling that will not improve our species at all in the way Pro has suggested.
Debate Round No. 2


yo hop off my d and take a chill pill

anyways. . . North korea is a mega perfect example of a beatiful country with communism. The people are happy, Treated with kindness, And love their leader. If only we could move there eh? With communism we could practice this idea of enslaving women. Think about the cold war with russia that we were neck and neck on. We prolly woulda taken the dub if we had women doing basic necessities for men so they could focus on the war and out smart the russians. America would be quite superior if it werent for ignorant men like you. Litboij is OUT. *mic drop*


I actually don't have to prove that NK is inhumane to win this debate. NK doesn't have the policy of 2 women to one man and on top of that has no sign of making women serve men at all since the men are forced to be anything but dominant if they are not Kim Jong-Un. It is predicted that 1 out of every 10 citizens is a 'literal slave' [https://www. Washingtonpost. Com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/07/19/north-korea-has-2-6-million-modern-slaves-new-report-estimates/? Utm_term=. 62450fbb2ed9].

Anyways, I have not had my points rebuked by Pro and since NK isn't even the system Pro is suggesting, Then if NK is utopia Pro admits their system is not.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by kathrynkennedy 1 year ago
Im two years too late, Just saw this debate and Im here to say that women could be very successful as well if she had slaves and support. Men do not have to gather wives or slaves per se, Just have a live in housecleaner, Cook, And someone who comes around once a week to do your gardening and help out around the yard. Hire some handy men as well to keep the maintence on the house up.
Posted by AndrewHvisdak 3 years ago
I can't believe the inhumanity of such a horrifying system was scarcely mentioned. Debates like this make me lose faith in humanity.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
RM supreme won without finishing the debate.
Posted by RMTheSupreme 3 years ago
Juggle is ruining the formatting, Sigh.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I hate having to give reasons for my voting. Anyway, Con gave reasons and logic for why such a system would not work and expanded upon it in later rounds. Pro made claims, but didn't really give any evidence or logic for it. Pro to me looks more like a troll than a debater or even a person having a normal conversation.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.