Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#5883

Are women the "weaker sex" in today's world?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
0
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

Americandebater24
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1442
rating
52
debates
58.65%
won
Description

The topic of women remains highly provocative in today's society. My goal is not to argue that the female sex is weak, but rather to explore this idea and engage in thoughtful discussion

the question remains: Have women truly proven that they can completely replace men in all fields when necessary? Can they fill all roles equally, or is there something inherently different in the nature of male and female contributions to society?

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

RFV Pro forfeited, so I'm sending all the point that way.
Still, below are my thoughts while reading.

Title,
Well, might depend on what 'weaknesses one is counting.
Description
Okay.

Pro R1
Argues some ways and gives sources of some ways women are physically weaker than men.
Argues and gives sources for hormonal effects on emotions.
(Course, same might be said of some men and testosterone)

Con R1
Sources might help as well.
There exist studies that show women outperforming men in some long distance running for example.

Com makes arguments and examples of strengths that women possess. Not only physically, but mental and emotional strength as well.
Though Con might do well to argue examples of where women outperform men.
They 'do do this in health and longevity.

While Con gives examples of times women have done well in various fields, this is not the same as could they 'replace men.
If one replaced the entire military with women for example, I think there would be a degradation of performance.
. . . Though arguably there are female dominated careers, where if one replaced all the women with men, there might again be a degradation of performance.
One could also argue for the value of synergy at times.

Con argues for wider definition of weakness, which arguably Pro's own round 1 encourages by their hormone argument effecting emotions.
I'm not convinced by Cons argument that either sex needs to be stronger in 'every way, to be called stronger. In general speech, even if some item has a specialization, if it is weaker in every other aspect, it might be called weaker.

Pro R2
Pro argues,
"can women fully replace men?"
But that 'does bring up the question, can men fully replace women?

Argues careers where men excel.

I'm not sure that arguing other mammals also have kids, is a good counter argument.
Other mammals also have muscle, would that counter Pros earlier arguments?

Pro argues percentage of Nobel prize winners,
Argues exceptional women do not prove women as a whole.

Con R2
When did Pro state?
"previously stated that we should avoid gender generalizations and instead focus on individual capabilities."

Eh, one could argue that since Pro 'explicitly stated in the 'description whether women can replace men in various jobs and by how much.
Such would be the standard held to both in the debate.

Con argument 2
I don't think it matters if Pro said exceptional women exist, as after he argues 'for generalization 'not individualizing.
"However, for the majority of women"

Con argument 3
Argues the opposite,
And there 'is some merit in this, I think it is arguing that Pro is comparing apples to oranges.
. . . Though 'personally, I think men and women are enough alike, that it does not 'need be apples and oranges. . . Still, both sexes have strong points that the other cannot 'fully cover, I think.

Pro R3
Though it is 'possible Pro is acknowledging their likely defeat once people vote,
Or acknowledging they think they lost.

I'm interpreting their statements in R3 as a forfeiture.

Con R3
Seemed to enjoy the debate.