Instigator / Con
9
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Topic
#2832
Women and children first
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
fauxlaw
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 7,500
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
11
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description
The Titanic is sinking. There are not enough lifeboats for everybody. This debate is about the policy of prioritizing women and children for life boat seats during the sinking of the Titanic. Death23 is CON. Death23 is arguing AGAINST women and children first.
Round 1
This is from the wikipedia:
The phrase was popularised by its usage on the RMSTitanic.[12] The Second Officer suggested to Captain Smith, "Hadn't webetter get the women and children into the boats, sir?", to which thecaptain responded: "put the women and children in and loweraway".[13] The First and Second officers (William McMaster Murdoch andCharles Lightoller) interpreted the evacuation order differently; Murdoch tookit to mean women and children first, while Lightoller took it to mean women andchildren only. Second Officer Lightoller lowered lifeboats with empty seats ifthere were no women and children waiting to board, while First Officer Murdochallowed a limited number of men to board if all the nearby women and childrenhad embarked.[14] As a consequence, 74% of the women and 52% of the children onboard were saved, but only 20% of the men.[15] Some officers on the Titanicmisinterpreted the order from Captain Smith, and tried to prevent men fromboarding the lifeboats.[16][17] It was intended that women and children wouldboard first, with any remaining free spaces for men. Because not all women andchildren were saved on the Titanic, the few men who survived, like White Starofficial J. Bruce Ismay, were initially branded as cowards.[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first#20th_century
I will go with this purported set of facts.
In any event, the policy is unjustifiable andunfair. Many passengers died simply because they were male. They were ticketedpassengers just like everybody else. There is no reason the company should bedevaluing them on that basis.
Resolved: Women and children first [re: RMS Titanic tragedy]
I Argument: misunderstanding Captain Smith of the RMS Titanic
I.a On the ill-fated RMS Titanic, Captain Smith’s First and Second Officers took separate interpretations of the Captain’s orders. On suggestion by the Second Officer, “Hadn’t we better get the women and children into the boats, sir,” the Captain replied by the following order: “Put the women and children in and lower away.”[1]
I.a.1 The critical interrupt in the suggestion and subsequent order is the separate understanding between the Second Officer’s suggestion, the Captain’s subsequent order, and the critical including of the word “first” in the Second Officer’s suggestion, implying that there should be a classification of women/children, and then men, and, finally, the First Officer’s interpretation of the Captain’s order, which did not contain an ordered sequence of all passengers, but mentioning only women and children.
I.a.1.A The Second Officer’s suggestion of “women and children first” may have implied that men were to follow in order of sequence of loading passengers.
I.a.2 Because the Officers reacted differently in carrying out the order, the Second Officer first boarded women and children, and perceiving he had met that order, began allowing men aboard lifeboats, while the First Officer apparently allowed only women and children to board lifeboats.
I.b Known facts of the RMS Titanic passenger and crew compliment, and the number of lifeboats and total seats on all lifeboats, combined:
1. Total crew compliment: 885[2] unknown specifically by male/female
men: 869[5]
children: 107[6]
note: There is no accounting in the source for the numbers of [3] not being the sum of [4]+[5]+[6].
3. The total number of seats available on all lifeboats combined: 1,178[7]
I.c Therefore, it is shown that there were more total lifeboat seats available than there were the total number of women and children, combined [554] by more than double. Therefore, the panic that ensued by the Officers’ separate understanding of the Captain’s orders could have been avoided by a simple cross-check between the Officers before collecting passengers for boarding the lifeboats.
I.d Further, it is clear that the Second Officers’ initial suggestion would have sufficed for boarding all women and children passengers [554], leaving ample room for 624 of the 869 male adult passengers. Yes, there were insufficient lifeboats on board to save all passengers and crew, but that is a factor outside of this Resolution and debate. And, yes, the confusion over the Captain’s orders did result in more lives lost by lowering insufficiently filled lifeboats, but that is really outside the resolution and debate parameters as well. The point is, and my BoP is that a policy of women and children first could have been assured leaving 53% of lifeboat seats available for men on board.
I.d.1 53% is a greater percentage than is the worldwide typical percentage of men to women [men = 50.4%, women 49.6%] in the population.[8]
I.e Therefore, Con’s Resolution that there should not have been a policy of women and children first is not demonstrated because there was ample room to accommodate all women and children and still accommodate over 50.4% of the men on board at an agreeable percentage, 53% of them, chivalry notwithstanding.
II. Rebuttal: “The policy is unjustified and unfair”
II.a Pro’s R1 argument regarding the Second Officer’s suggestion, the Captain’s order, and the separate interpretations of that order by the First and Second Officers, as I have cited them above, arg. I.a.1 – I.a.2, is not as detailed as my description, although our source material is essentially the same. Pro does not offer argument regarding the significance of the Second Officer’s mention of “women and children first,” thus implying that his suggestion included men to also be loaded onboard lifeboats, and not ignored.
II.b Whether the Captain’s subsequent order was meant to imply, because it was not vocalized, that men should follow in a sequence once women and children were boarded in lifeboats is a matter for conjecture now. We cannot just assume the Captain’s order truncated the Second officer’s suggestion, demonstrating a callous, but apparently chivalrous attitude. Assumption is easy, but it is not a documented fact.
II.c Nor does Pro entertain the numbers analysis I have offered in arg. I.b through I.e, that the calculation of the shipboard population of the RMS Titanic happened to accommodate a comparison to a coincident worldwide population of men and women [children being of both sexes, anyway]. I cannot make the assumption, either, that the Captain, or the Second Officer, made this calculation of world population comparison by sexes; I will admit they probably did not. It is, however, a consistent calculation; there were sufficient seats onboard all lifeboats, combined, to accommodate that calculation, if not accommodating all persons onboard the ill-fated vessel. Therefore, one can conclude Pro’s R1 claim is incorrect.
II.d Pro further ignored the dilemma faced by the crew, specifically the Captain and Officers, that the RMS Titanic simply was not equipped to accommodate all persons on board the vessel, as a matter of design and manufacture.
II.e Therefore, Pro’s Resolution fails.
I conclude for R1, and pass R2 to Con.
Round 2
Re: Misunderstanding Captain Smith
This point is not relevant because this debate isn't about defending Captain Smith. "This debate is about the policy of prioritizing women and children for life boat seats during the sinking of the Titanic." (see debate description) That such policy existed isn't disputed, as Pro admits that both the first and second officers of Titanic prioritized women and children for life boat seats. Pro's contention that the policy may have been implemented independently of Captain Smith or based on a misinterpretation of his orders does not support Pro's position. Even if that were true, it would be an argument against Pro because it would tend to show that the policy of prioritizing women and children for life boat seats did not have the support of Captain Smith. Again, the existence of the policy isn't disputed. It is not my burden to demonstrate that the policy of prioritizing women and children was Captain Smith's intention. The debate description makes no mention of Captain Smith. Additionally, Captain Smith was on the ship while the lifeboats were being loaded up. He likely had some knowledge of what was going on with the lifeboats. That he did not interfere with the policy of prioritizing women and children for lifeboat seats while it was happening, while he was there, on his ship which he commanded, amounts to an accpetance and ratification of the policy notwithstanding the fact that his original orders may have been misconstrued.
Re: Numerical count argument
"there were insufficient lifeboats on board to save all passengers and crew, but that is a factor outside of this Resolution and debate."
?
The debate description states that "[t]here are not enough lifeboats for everybody." The factor is clearly within the scope of this debate.
Pro seems to be arguing that a lot of the loss of life was caused by factors other than the policy of prioritizing women and children for life boat seats, and that if the life boats had been filled to capacity, then it wouldn't have been as bad as it was, or unfair as it was.
Pro is wrong. Pro supposes that saving 100% of the women and 100% of the children, while allowing 47% of the men to die is "agreeable". It's not agreeable because it's unjustifiable and disgustingly unfair to devalue and dispose of those lives at a grossly disproportionate rate simply because they are men.
Pro has advanced no argument in support of the merits of the policy of prioritizing women and children for life boat seats during the sinking of the Titanic. Pro has argued only that the policy didn't have the support of the captain and that a substantial loss of life was caused by incompetence or chaos.
Re: Rebuttal
Pro's rebuttal here is focused on my not addressing Pro's opening arguments. Obviously I wouldn't have addressed them when I opened. I didn't see them yet. In any event, they are addressed now.
Resolved: Women and children first [re: RMS Titanic tragedy]
I Argument: Maritime Law
I.a At the time of the RMS Titanic disaster, maritime law did not stipulate that all souls onboard a vessel had to be accommodated by lifeboats.[1] Maritime law was changed following and due to the RMS Titanic tragedy.
I.b However, that change still did not accommodate all persons on board cruise ships by lifeboats. Rather, there was accommodation for approximately 75% of all persons on board by lifeboats, and the balance were to be accommodated by inflatable, or rigid life rafts, or some other accommodation, but maritime law ultimately changed to allow rescue of all persons onboard a vessel at sea.[2] As a result, Pro’s Resolution, strictly as stated, that “This debate is about the policy of prioritizing women and children for life boat seats during the sinking of the Titanic” is somewhat of a truism [it was acknowledged fact then, and accepted as fact, now], because the design intent of the RMS Titanic was that there would not be sufficient lifeboat seats to accommodate all persons onboard, be it right, wrong, or indifferent.
I.b.1 The requirement now is, “Regulations require each side of cruise ships have enough lifeboats to accommodate 37.5% of the total number of persons on board (passengers and crew), 75% in total. Inflatable or rigid life rafts must accommodate the remaining 25% of passengers and crew. (SOLAS, Section II, Regulation 21, 1.1)”[3]
I.b.2 “SOLAS” is the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, which was “…developed after the sinking of the Titanic in 1914, but was not fully adopted until 1974.”[4]
II Rebuttal: “There are not enough lifeboats for everybody”
II.a Comparable to Pro’s excerpt from the Description as noted above, arg. I.b, this statement of insufficient accommodating lifeboats, also from Pro’s Description, is also a truism, which begs the response, “Yes; and?” The point Pro makes is that the “policy” of prioritizing all women and children first was an unfair “policy” to apply. My rebuttal is, what is a “policy?”
II.b “Policy,” by Pro’s emphasis on the word, implies that there was an extent policy to be followed. Was that the case?
II.b.1 Since Pro has avoided defining this critical word in his Resolution Description, let’s offer an attempt:
According to the OED: Policy n, 4. A principle or course of action adopted or proposed as desirable, advantageous, or expedient; esp. one formally advocated by a government, political party, etc. Also as a mass noun: method of acting on matters of principle, settled practice. (Now the usual sense.)
Note that this is the 4th in a sequence of definitions. The previous 3, by OED designation, are all obsolete senses of the word ‘policy.’
II.b.2 Note the term “formally” in the OED definition. That would not align with a word-of-mouth procedure. By this definition, the Second Officer’s suggestion of “…woman and children first” may or may not qualify as an extant policy as already provided in an RMS Titanic volume of onboard procedures for the ship’s crew, if one even existed. By the Officer’s suggestion, beginning with “Hadn’t we better get…” might imply that, lacking a formal, documented procedure defined in such a manual, it really might have been just a suggestion.
II.b.3 “Might” may have a predecessory clue. In the April 12, 2012 issue of Scientific American, the article, “The Extraordinary Story of the White Star Liner Titanic” includes the following regarding the ship’s designed lifeboat compliment:
“The regulations governing the number of lifeboats had not been changed since 1894—18 years earlier—and the Titanic was 460 percent larger than the largest ship in the world at the time the outdated rules were published.”[5] [bold added for emphasis]
The article further indicates that RMS Titanic “sailed with 16 lifeboats capable of accomodating 1,178 human beings…”[6] in April, 2012. There is no indication that Titanic’s lifeboats changed their size from that of previous vessel classes to the new Olympic class featured by RMS Olympic, Titanic, and Britannic. Therefore, the seat accommodations remained as noted from 1894, when ocean-sailing passenger cruise vessels were so much smaller, and, therefore, would accommodate those earlier ships’ full passenger compliment. That would lead one to believe there was no specific policy documented by White Star Lines stipulating a policy of, or even a need for a policy of “women and children first.”
II.c To date, my inquiry has failed to turn up a White Star Line policy manual from 1912 that would confirm whether a “women and children first” was a documented passenger rescue directive. The lack cannot allow the opinion that there was an official policy. Therefore, “policy,” by definition, may be the wrong term to use in Pro’s Resolution, and any valid subsequent argument.
III Rebuttal: Women and children first: unmerited policy, or class discrimination?
III.a Pro’s BoP is that a “women and children first” policy should be considered unmerited policy [assuming there was a standing policy and not a snap decision], can be called into question not just because of Rebuttal II, above, but also because even though there were sufficient lifeboat seats onboard to accommodate over twice the women and children passenger compliment onboard Titanic [447 + 107 = 554], 93 women and 53 children lost their lives [total 146], or 26% of all women and children onboard.[7] The fact is, first through third classes onboard lost increasingly higher numbers of both women and children by descent [lower and lower decks] in classes of passengers. Not even women and children in all classes were treated in identical fashion, contrary to Pro’s argument. Fairness, Pro argues? Not even to women and children, then, by the numbers. Let alone men.
III.b Pro’s Resolution fails.
Round 3
Re: Maritime Law
Maritime law is not very relevant. Perhaps it would be if prioritizing women and children for lifeboat seats was illegal, or something.
Re: Definition of policy
Whether or not "women and children first" constitutes a policy is not relevant to the truth value of the resolution. The debate title is "Women and children first". The debate description states that I am arguing against it. We may call "Women and children first" a rule, guideline, code, or whatever you want to call it. It doesn't matter what you call it as it's obvious what's being referred to.
Re: Numerical arguments
That there were unfair disparities in survival rates among the passenger classes is admitted. Again, this fact is not relevant to the merits of "women and children first". I'm not exactly sure what the cause of the disparities were. Perhaps first and second class passengers were simply closer to the lifeboats. I do not know, but it isn't relevant anyway.
Pro's arguments so far haven't been good. The arguments have largely been that it's unclear that the policy was entirely the creation of Captain Smith, semantic arguments and the argument that it wouldn't have been as bad if other contributing factors weren't at play. Pro has yet to advance any argument in favor of the merits of "women and children first". Pro has not put forth any arguments about reproductive potential, the meaning of sacrifice, the dishonor of disposing of the helpless, the lack of opportunity timewise for the formation of ideal policy, nor the greater value in number of years of life saved by sparing the young as opposed to the old. I do not endorse any argument along those lines; I merely point them out to illustrate lines of arguments that Pro could have but thus far failed to advance.
Resolved: Women and children first
I need to correct a misidentification in my R2, III.a regarding “Pro’s BoP…” That should have read “Con’s BoP…”
I Rebuttal: Relevance: maritime law
I.a Con’s R3 argues, “Maritime law is not very relevant. Perhaps it would be for if prioritizing for women and children… was illegal…” Curious position to take considering Con’s entire BoP is just that: opposing apparent prioritizing of women and children as policy. Con argued in R1, “…the policy is unjustifiable and unfair…” Con opened the door claiming the policy was prioritizing. That, dear readers, is Resolution creep, and that is a failed argument.
II Rebuttal: definition of policy
II.a Con failed to note ‘policy’ as a critical term in his Resolution or define it in Description. In R3, Con states, “Whether or not ‘women and children first’ constitutes a policy is not relevant to the truth value of the resolution.” Remember Con’s Description:
“This debate is about the policyof prioritizing women and children for life boat seats during the sinking of the Titanic.”
II.a.1 Is ‘policy’ relevant to the truth value, and not relevant to the truth value of the Resolution? Simultaneously? We have already been to Con’s “…the policy is unjustifiable and unfair…” If Con truly wants it both ways, I conclude we are back to Resolution creep, and that is a failed argument.
III Rebuttal: numerical arguments
III.a Con’s R3 argues, “…there were unfair disparities in the survival rates among the passenger classes…” but further argues, “…this fact is not relevant to the merits of ‘women and children first.’” Con is confused on the merits of his own arguments, to wit, relevance of maritime law, and definition of policy.
III.b My R2 argument, III.a, spells out that, by the numbers, more numbers of men perished than women and children, but there were more adult male passengers onboard than women and children, combined. Was it unfair that ticketed passengers allowed more men than women and children? There were fewer passengers than the capacity of the Titanic, so White Star Lines cannot be accused of age and gender discrimination. That is a failed argument.
IV Rebuttal: “Pro’s arguments so far haven’t been good”
IV.a The last desperate Con claim of Resolution creep. Pro's detailed arguments, summarized:
1. There was no maritime law [a “formal policy,” by definition] presenting legal precedent of “women and children first.”
2. There was no defined “formal policy” of “women and children first.”
3. There was no policy bias of men vs. women and children; there were simply more men than women and children onboard.
IV.b It is not that there has been a concentrated effort to demonstrate that, according to Con’s R3 conclusion, “…the arguments have largely been that it's unclear that the policy was entirely the creation of Captain Smith.” Rather, the simple argument, stated in R1, I.a.2, that “…the Officers reacted differently in carrying out the order.”
IV.c It is not that Con’s R3 conclusion is, “…semantic arguments and the argument that it wouldn't have been as bad if other contributing factors weren't at play.” It wasn’t even, as Con suggested, that “…the policy was unjustified and unfair.”
IV.c.1 Rather, the simple arguments, stated in my R1, II.d, were that“…the RMS Titanic simply was not equipped to accommodate all persons on board the vessel, as a matter of design and manufacture,” and, in my R2, I.a, that “…maritime law did not stipulate that all souls onboard a vessel had to be accommodated by lifeboats,” and, finally, thatmy R2, II.b.3, that “the regulations governing the number of lifeboats had not been changed since 1894—18 years earlier—and the Titanic was 460 percent larger than the largest ship in the world at the time the outdated rules were published.”
IV.d It is not that Con argued, “Pro has yet to advance any argument in favor of the merits of ‘women and children first.’” Merit? As if merit equates to a necessary policy? Con’s Description and arguments are that there must have been a policy of women and children first, and that the policy is unfair.
IV.d.1 To quote Con’s Description again, “This debate is about the policy of prioritizing women and children for life boat seats during the sinking of the Titanic.”
IV.d.2 And, again, Con’s R1, “the policy is unjustifiable and unfair.”
IV.d.3 Still, again, Con’s R2, “Pro has argued only that the policy didn't have the support of the captain and that a substantial loss of life was caused by incompetence or chaos.” [I did not argue that, by the way. I argued that two Officers took two different interpretations of the Captain's order. Better to quote an opponent's argument than to re-interpret it in one's own words. The two Officers did that to the peril of the Titanic.]
IV.d.4 Finally, Con’s R3, “Whether or not ‘women and children first’ constitutes a policy is not relevant to the truth value of the resolution.”
IV.d.5 “Policy, policy, policy, policy.” Con’s broken record has simply been refuted, not as he expected, that I would argue in favor of a policy. Let me remind Con of his R3 argument, immediately following the quote in IV.d.4, above: “The debate title is "Women and children first." I agree, that is the Resolution, in a nutshell. Am I the only one that notices the Resolution is lacking the word “policy?”
IV.d.6 Thus my unerring, constant argument throughout: there was no policy for Pro to support. Note that I defined policy, which Con avoided in the Description and in three argument rounds to do himself, even though Con made the word significant in all his rounds of argument. By definition, a policy did not exist. What was it, then? As both Con and Pro cited, the source called it a “suggestion.”
VI. Conclusion
VI.a If the semantics are not clear enough, let’s review Con’s Description, again. Con states, “Death23 is CON. Death23 is arguing AGAINST women and children first.”
VI.b Often, when the Initiator defines a participant’s BoP, the opposing party’s BoP is also defined, but a Pro BoP is missing from Con’s Description. I take by that exclusion that Pro’s BoP is for Pro to define. I have: I do not argue FOR women and children, first, last, or ever. There was no policy, and Con’s Resolution does not speak to a policy, at all. Therefore, according to Con’s own subsequent arguments of policy as a repeating bell, policy fails the Resolution. It, is, simply, as I’ve stated, Resolution creep. That is a failed argument.
I am grateful for your read of these debate arguments. Please vote for Pro.
again, I'm not 100% sure about my vote myself. Even Undefeatable originally voted Pro due to the 50%+ statistic muddling the debate. Depending on framework, Pro is easily winning. Con didn't push the equality framework as far as he could have (Ex. look at Whiteflame's debate against Undefeatable), but it's definitely there.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
I'd be curious for a review on sources given the the disparity. Otherwise having read the debate, I can completely understand a voter getting lost in how pro setup his case; and even not understanding the pro's challenges to the equality issue that was con's case (the voter seemed to have read them, as they did paraphrase one of the numbers from it).
As a numbers guy, I am going to have very different takeaways from a debate like this than the average person. This kind of thing is to be expected. Different audiences, different outcomes.,
**************************************************
Thank you for voting
"the debater influencing the voter to recast the vote in their favor." ; What I actually asked him to do: "vote based on the facts that were alleged in the debate without bias being a dispositive factor"
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3:0, 3 points to CON
>Reason for Decision: "I had previously misread Pro's 57% statistic, apologies to debaters. Pro's argument was complex and based upon an ideal reality, complemented by the idea that the 26% of women died anyways following the idea of "women and children first". Even though con didn't explicitly counter the argument that "people will die anyways", he makes the point that Pro arbitrarily uses bias and merely values people based on their sex. As pro failed to address this idea, it seems that women and children first have no basis, as a significant disproportionate amount of men will die. Nicely fought on both sides."
>Reason for Mod Action:
It has come to my attention that Undefeatable is re-allocating their voting points under the direct influence of Death23 in the comments. Normally I would allow people to revote as they see fit (hence me deleting Undefeatable's vote originally), but they MUST be doing so only under their own personal re-evaluation, not pressured to do so by impartial factions.
Let me be clear: It's OK for a debater to challenge the judge's decision in the comments, but under no circumstances should this cross the line into the debater influencing the voter to recast the vote in their favor. This renders Undefeatable's judgement based partially on post facto, and therefore outside, content.
Citing our Voting Policy:
"Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments."
I am requesting Undefeatable withhold from voting any more on this debate, as the influence of the comments section will play a role in any future decisions he will have.
Thank you
Undefeatable's vote has been deleted per their own request.
ah, I misinterpreted the 43% idea. Con's case had me scratching my head for sure.
You voted based on death ratios that were not alleged in the debate. You know that isn't fair. You're now saying that the ratios alleged in the debate with hypothetical full lifeboat usage -100% women saved to 50% men saved - is hard to acept as unjust or unfair. No, that is unjust and unfair and it's easy to see why. Your response makes no sense. When something doesn't make sense it's probably not true. The voting policy requires you to vote based on the facts that were alleged in the debate without bias being a dispositive factor. Do it.
here's the issue right, it's confusing if we're framing the debate in the practicality of "oh no, we didn't fill the lifeboats up well. Now what? Was it unjustified for the officer to immediately state ambiguously 'women and children first'?"
Fauxlaw admits that there is not enough life boats for everyone -- " there were insufficient lifeboats on board to save all passengers and crew" -- but he theorizes that given a perfect world, even if you saved all women and children first, you would still be able to save a large proportion of men. The amount of men unfairly lost is ambiguous compared to the number of women and children Fauxlaw states to have died on the Titanic. As such, it's difficult to accept that the policy of "women and children first" was unjust.
I need a better reason why we are taking the actual events that occurred and if "women and children first" arbitrarily caused the lifeboats to become unfilled and didn't save as much people as it could've saved.
Thanks for voting
"accommodate all women and children and still accommodate over 50.4% of the men on board" -Pro
"Pro supposes that saving 100% of the women and 100% of the children, while allowing 47% of the men to die is "agreeable"." -Con
"Pro also explained the ratio was only 47-53, contrary to an absurd proportion that con states. Con, I need you to tell me why 3% is unfair." "it seemed “equal” in the sense that women and men both had to die in relatively equal rates" -Your Vote
The survival ratio was a key factor in your vote. Both Pro and Con alleged in the debate was not a lot more imbalanced than you say it was in your vote. I ask you to reconsider your vote in light of the fact that both Pro and Con state in the debate that the ratio is not 47-53. I also stated in round 1 that 74% of women were saved and only 20% of men were. This was not disputed by Pro.
Well I'm sure Ragnar will save us if nobody else does
Well, that was, as hoped, a really fun debate. I hope you enjoyed it, too. Thanks. And, again, best of luck. I hope we have voters.
Bump.
Oh, it's not objectively related. It's just an internal tangle of thoughts, feelings, experiences and such.
true enough. I really don't see grist there for the debate. I have my questions about Giuliani sometimes, but, on the whole, I like the guy, but he may have some over-confidence issues in his position. I'm curious how it drove your thinking to launch the debate. If that is part of your argument, I'll wait for that. I will tell you the subject has raised some interesting considerations for me, and I do look forward to a robust debate. Good luck.
With respect to Giuliani's joke. I don't particularly like Giuliani, but he wasn't talking to her and the joke wasn't terribly sexist and it the environment it was made in bantering environment.
"A mountain over a moll hill," yes, but in which respect? Giuliani's joke, or Wie West's reaction? Her commentary that she "was trying out a new putting style," is a weak argument because there is evidence of her "trying"" that style wearing at least a dozen different outfits, including short skirts, indicating 18-holes' worth of "trials" on at least a dozen different days. 216 "trials?" Well, practice makes perfect, and perhaps one ought to be more aware of the clamoring press and less on one's casual comment of attire. I am personally amazed by the increase dollar value in attire when there is less and less of it. What, exactly, is being "valued?"
This is easy.
Whoever wrote that article really hates Giuliani lol. It didn't detail the joke, but it didn't sound that bad. She just wants to score pity points and get that #MeToo-era publicity. It is quite profitable to be a victim of the "patriarchy" or "white supremacy" or whatever other boogeyman can victimize people these days.
Your selective service act comment reminded me that there were women who opposed getting the vote because they thought they would be forced to be drafted or do volunteer firefighting, etc. I, for one, think that one of those privileges must go! Sign up or lose the vote! >:^)
Yes, and how often do we hear feminists advocating for having women be subjected to the selective service act? lol This all came up to me because of the Giuliani joke https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/michelle-wie-west-rudy-giuliani-1130890/ It seemed like a mountain made over a mole hill to me
Modern feminism is really only egalitarian in theory. They are more "cafeteria feminist" than anything, thinking they can pick and choose what they get.
I highly doubt they would elect a non-preferential policy for life boats. They say we need more female CEOs, but how often do you see them advocating for more female sanitation workers or construction workers? Probably never haha.
What brought to the fore for me is a combination of the egalitarian nature of modern feminism being a two way street and the COVID-19 vaccine prioritization debate.
Lol, I don't think it is logical to let women and children go first. Just some chivalry from a time that no longer exists
Definitely a unique debate topic :)
I have edited the debate to make it clear that it's about the Titanic, specifically. This should eliminate a lot of variables so cases can be focused on the particulars of that incident.
I'm inclined to engage the debate, but I question whether your resolution affects the Titanic only as a debate parameter, or are you speaking generally about the notion of "women and children first" on virtually any vessel? You offer general statistics for the Titanic, which are verifiable, and citable, but not for lifeboat capacity on ships in general with passengers + crew. It seems too open-ended for a verifiable debate argument.