Instigator / Con
14
1597
rating
22
debates
65.91%
won
Topic
#3357
Women should be the property of men
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 14 points ahead, the winner is...
Novice
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1456
rating
6
debates
16.67%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Definitions
- Woman: an adult female human being.
- Property: 1. a. Something owned; a possession.
- Man: an adult male human being.
- Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. "he should have been careful"
Resolved: Women should be the property of men.
- I will argue the negative.
- In round one, I will introduce my main argument, and we can see what PRO has to offer in his round.
Introduction
- In every modern society, and we can reference core countries specifically, women are granted different degrees of social and political rights as are men. This is evident. There are many cases in which women do not have rights. Women don't have the right to kill their child in abortion in Poland, for example. But in each of these societies, Women all have the right of the most basic individual freedom, freedom from being the property of another man. This principle would seem to be archaic, but regardless, it is what we are here to debate today.
O1:
- Let's discuss slavery.
- According to Britannica; slavery is the "condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons"
- Slavery is universally regarded as unethical and immoral. Let's agree that it was one of the worst and most dangerous atrocities committed by humankind.
- And if that is the case then slavery ought not to be practiced in a society.
- given that slavery is the condition in which "one human being was owned by another," it is an ethical potion we should strongly maintain, that one should not be able to own another person, in society to prevent every appearance of slavery.
- CON must provide a sufficient justification as to why women who are free-thinking individuals should be the property, the mere possession of another person.
- All things considered, I am against slavery, and I have no ill will towards any sex, and therefore, I believe that they ought to have the basic freedom to not be owned by others.
- The ball is in your court now.
Forfeited
Round 2
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 3
- Extend the argument(S) from round one on slavery.
- From, round one we were hopefully able to conclude that -given slavery is the condition in which one human being was owned by another, making women the property of men would be allowing slavery and making it/its values permissible.
conclusion
- I don't hate people, so I don't believe any of them are intrinsically inferior in quality or status as persons.
- The voters must vote for PRO. because CON has forfeited every round, and thus produced no arguments.
- Even if he were to produce something for round 3, I would not be able to engage with it, and it thus would be considered null as it has not been set up previously in the debate.
Forfeited
Send me the link and keep spamming me reminders
Can you vote on another one of my debates if you have time? I need more votes
Thank you for voting.
Please give me the riightful win on account of FF
I actually posted my round and the system glitched. I am done with debates here
I am telling you, it doesn't matter what side you take in a thought exercise.
I am telling you, it doesn't matter what side you take in a thought exercise.
So your playing Devil's advocate.
If you can't debate both sides of a position well enough to defeat baseline competent opponents, you don't know the subject well enough where you should even be holding an opinion on it.
I'm very socially conservative on issues like abortion and sex, but if you accept this debate, you're a misogynist; there's literally no other word for it.
No way, someone actually accepted the debate
Even though the official site tells you not to endorse criminal activity, this is very loosely enforced as many debates concern illegal activity, such as banning abortion or legalizing euthanization.
It's like you've never seen reduction to absurdity before...
You specially complained that moderators had not interceded in such an extreme controlling manner to prevent this debate from even being initiated.
"The CoC not only bans "criminal activity" but "promoting criminal activity" In fact a literal reading of the CoC would forbid arguing for a higher speed limit."
That is not how anyone else interprets the CoC. That you want to CoC to do things it doesn't do, doesn't make it so. You are of course welcome to initiate a referendum to refine any part of it you feel is in need of refinement.
@Novice I did not make that case, I did make the case that pro in this debate must necessarily promote activity which is illegal in many countries, thus it is forbidden by the CoC.
@Ragnar you shift the context, as I mentioned multiple times in the introduction thread making argument of any kind is an extremely protected activity in most modern democracies. You misrepresent my claim as "the existence of this debate topic breaks the law". No, no debate topic will break the law in the USA. It does however 'promote' (hence 'pro') illegal activity which is not against the law but against the CoC.
The CoC not only bans "criminal activity" but "promoting criminal activity" In fact a literal reading of the CoC would forbid arguing for a higher speed limit.
Furthermore you say here
"Were either debater to reveal credible information that they have kidnapped someone with the intent to make them a slave, and moderators saw it (again, not every word posted here gets read and approved before it is displayed), the police would be notified."
That is another subtle shift of context. Notifying police and removing the user who made such an admission are two different things. If you believe the CoC empowers you to remove people who have made an admission of breaking any law anywhere that is a much broader power than believing the CoC empowers you to remove content which is itself illegal to post.
For example in the USA it is illegal to distribute child pornography. Simply posting that would be illegal, and knowingly allowing it to remain posted would likely introduce some liability. That is criminal posting.
Breaking a speed limit or built a shed without a permit would constitute "criminal activity", but it certainly not a crime to admit a crime. There is no legal liability, however if you interpret the CoC as authorizing you to ban persons because you think they're criminals then it empowers you to ban someone for speeding or building a shed without a permit.
You must be extremely stupid to make a case that that
Regarding your report that the very existence of this debate topic breaks the law:
It does not in any nation to which I am familiar.
Were either debater to reveal credible information that they have kidnapped someone with the intent to make them a slave, and moderators saw it (again, not every word posted here gets read and approved before it is displayed), the police would be notified.
Well, if Novice defines the meaning of property, there's no chance.
I would almost consider accepting this debate if I wouldn't have it on my profile record.
Good luck finding anyone to take this debate.
I could semantics this thing but it would get annoying haha.
I think it is in ones best interests to accept this debate
Sad, the depths...