Actually no there's death penalty one, but WF is probably assigned to it.
Actually no there's death penalty one, but WF is probably assigned to it.
I think you voted on all the others except your own debate so yeah.
If the argument is valid, it's valid.
Sometimes they don't make an argument though. Sometimes they make a claim like "men are violent." And someone else makes a claim like "men are nice." And it sounds like they disagree, but when you press them, they actually agree on all the relevant statistics. The point is that these kinds of statements don't actually tell anyone where your disagreements lie.
It is the state in which access to rights, resources, and opportunities is not determined or limited by a person's gender.
Except even people who agree on gender equality disagree on what this means in practice. Should we have STEM programs exclusively for women, for example? Or a male-only draft? At some point people stop identifying good policies by what is the most equal, and start defining equality by whatever the most reasonable policy is. At which point, the principal of equality ceases to be useful for identifying the best policy. And it gets even harder to pin down when it comes to belief that genders are equal, because there are clearly differences in aggregate measures between genders. I don't even think men are all equal to each other. MLK was a lot better than Hitler.
Well there should be one more UltaRated debate you can vote on left, that being the civil liberties/national security one you said you didn't want to vote on lol.
Any interest?
Please sign up here to participate in the fifth round of the ultrarated tournament. Anyone can join even if you haven't done previous rounds of the tournament. Just a warning up front: you will have to vote on up to three debates to earn badges before you can get matched up and do an ultrarated debate, as several of them are still in the queue.
1. Savant
2. whiteflame
3. Kohai
4. OranjeDisco
5. SatanLucy
6. LancelotDuLac
7. Leaning
8. wylted
9.
10.
Op is just a complaint about labels. Meh.
Sometimes the labels are important because it means that people are ostensibly debating an issue, but are really just having an argument over defining things a different way. Or the argument someone is making is really for a vacuous truth ("we should have x in cases where x makes sense") rather than arguing for the position they actually disagree with people on. Or they do have policy disagreements, but these get overshadowed by the argument over definitions. To be fair, there are a lot of other issues I think this applies to as well (trans debates being the biggest one that comes to mind).
Feminism is defined as belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. So, if we believe the sexes are equal, is this something we can test empirically? I'd say it's not, at least given how the belief is currently expressed.
If feminists do believe in gender equality, then they often shoot themselves in the foot by arguing for ways that the sexes are clearly different. For example: men being stronger, women making a greater sacrifice in childbearing, men being more violent, men committing more crimes, women being more risk-averse, etc. And these aren't just trivial differences either, these traits are all either better or worse to have in aggregate. There are exceptions, like strong women and weak men, but is gender equality just the belief that there are exceptions? I'm sure you could find plenty of raging sexists who will agree that some women are stronger than some men. If sexism is about making predictions about individuals (like, predicting how tall someone will be), well then knowing aggregate measures and their sex might actually be useful for that. But if we know the individual well enough (like, how tall a dude is), I think even sexists would say we don't have to use the aggregate measures anymore in that specific case.
It's not just that "men are more violent than women" is a belief that could lead to sexism. It seems like it is the sexism. What is a sexist belief, if not a belief that implies one gender is better in some way than another? And let's say it's empirically true. If that's the case, shouldn't we update our beliefs and become sexists? Maybe gender equality is saying that even if men and women are different in measurable ways and some of those differences are clearly good or bad, women and men are equal in some non-measurable way (i.e. men and women who are equally strong, equally violent, and also controlling for everything else listed, are equal). But that seems pretty vacuous. Is any sexist really arguing that women and men are unequal in some "vague, unmeasurable way"? They're usually saying "men and women aren't equal due to x, y, and z differences." So obviously if we ignore those differences then we shouldn't believe they are unequal for no reason.
I think the normal feminist response would be to say that, sure, we believe the sexes are in aggregate different in some ways, but these ways can be backed up by evidence and statistics, unlike sexist beliefs which are false.
So if a belief must be false to be sexist, then "sexism is a lie" sure seems like a vacuous truth. Obviously something that must be false be definition will end up being false. If we were going to "test" sexism, then we'd have to take some belief that seems sexist (like "[gender] is on average [worse] as measured by [x metric]") and then see if that's true. But if it is true, we just update the definition of what we're testing so that gender equality is compatible with that belief. Let's say some sexist shows up and says "men are better at playing the cello while dancing." And we call them a sexist. But then we do a hundred studies and find that on average, men are better at playing the cello while dancing. Will we decide we were wrong and gender equality is a lie? Or will we just change the definition of gender equality?
But let's ignore the "belief" part of gender equality and move to the advocacy part. Men and women should be treated equally, right? Except plenty of gender equality groups would say there are exceptions to this, like women-only spaces, or building more women's shelters, or saying sexism against men shouldn't be as taboo as sexism against women because of societal circumstances. Aren't these just arguments that, in some circumstances, men and women shouldn't be treated equally? And what exactly distinguishes this? Is there any sexist policy that, if found to be a good policy, would prove that gender equality is a bad idea? Or would we just retcon what gender equality means? And if someone says or advocates something sexist, well, how do we know it's not just another exception? Plenty of other things that seem sexist turned out to be good enough ideas that even gender equality (feminist) groups are advocating for them, right? Maybe they're intended to make society more equal or just long term, but isn't that the stated goal of any policy, sexist or not? To improve society in some way, based on responding to the current circumstances?
I think the closest you'd get to a non-vacuous definition of gender equality would be someone who was literally against any policy that treated the sexes differently, or, if they had exceptions, was very clear about what the boundaries are around the kind of equality they're advocating for and willing to bite the bullet in some cases for the sake of gender equality.
One visible distinction might be collective responsibility. I think most proponents of gender equality would agree that men aren't responsible for the actions of other men and women aren't responsible for the actions of other women; it's not like they would make meaningful exceptions to that premise. But this is just one belief, so I don't think it's sufficient to explain which policies/beliefs fall under gender equality and which don't.
Obviously, there are plenty of sexist beliefs and policies that are bad (limiting property ownership or voting rights, or even male-only conscription I'd argue), and I'm cherry picking a few potential exceptions to make a point about categorization. But the point is, even if feminists make good arguments, many of them aren't arguments for gender equality. I can say that "limiting property ownership or voting rights, and male-only conscription" are sexist, but then some gender equality proponent could come along and say, "well this war is an exception, so actually male-only conscription isn't sexist in this case." The definition just changes based on what "makes sense." To some extent, it seems like both sides agree that gender equality isn't true as an absolute, they're just in disagreement over the details. And that's not enough to distinguish them from sexists, because sexists would probably agree that there are some ways in which the sexes are/should be different and some ways in which they're similar.
This isn't me saying that what people today call "gender equality" today is wrong, per se, just that what they're really advocating for is gender equality in cases when it makes sense, and at that point you may as well simplify things and just say "I support laws that make sense" rather than "I support gender equality." (If your position is "we should do x when it makes sense" then people are gonna agree with that premise, regardless of what x is.) And because people disagree on what "makes sense," this isn't even a rigorous definition. Even sexist people will probably support equality in cases when they think it makes sense, the real hurdle is convincing them that specific policies don't make sense, not that gender equality as a vague concept is good. To some extent this also applies to concepts like fascism/authoritarianism/capitalism when the real debate is often over specific policies but people seem to think it's over definitions or broader philosophical absolutes. There's a reason I didn't make this post about racism, but a similar definitional issue occurs there.
I've got time to kill. Just in the forums or do you want to challenge me to like a debate that's actually a rap battle?
self-imposed consequences of a patriarchal society
It's not self-imposed if the men doing the murdering aren't the same as the men being murdered. And women can contribute to patriarchy, because it's just used to mean gender discrimination, regardless of who is doing the discriminating. Also, I don't think the term privilege has something to do with whose fault something is. Like white people today are still said to be privileged even if they had nothing to do with slavery or segregation.
I reached out privately to check in. From what I skimmed in previous threads I didn't see any direct violations of the rules, but I will keep an eye out. Going to lock this thread for now to prevent further escalation.
100 DUIs with victims send more ppl to the hospital than 100 rapes, not 100 DUIs.
Sure but not every DUI has a victim. Most don't.
If there's a DUI victim, it means someone got hit though right?
Yeah but you have to multiply that percent by the percentage that get hit, which brings it down a lot.
the person who the DUI driver's vehicle crashed into (and all of their passengers) can't do that
Most of the time it doesn't crash though. That's my point.
If someone was driving dangerous enough from DUI that they get caught and I'm a passenger, then I'd probably deal with trauma from that. I'd be scared of getting in a car crash and losing my legs. That would be traumatizing.
Well presumably you knew they were drunk when you got in the car.
If someone gets injured from a DUI crash, then I can see a massive chance that they would be suicidal too. I would be suicidal if I lost my leg.
Yeah but with a DUI most of the time there will be no injury and thus no potential for trauma.
https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/a0/resolved-democracies-ought-to-prioritize-the-protection-of-civil-liberties-over-national-security-when-the-two-are-in-conflict
1% of 500k is 5k. There are 10x that many suicides in the US per year.
no one among 30 million raped women would commit suicide if werent raped.
Suicide attempt rate is under a percent normally vs. 13% for rape victims. So most suicides by rape victims are due to the rape.
Reported number of SA is 500k per year.
We're talking about rape specifically, not SA in general. Estimate for number of rapes is a quarter of that.
That's not per capita though. Drunk driving is much more common than rape.
I measure how bad a traumatic event is by how often people go to the hospital over it.
That's not a comprehensive measure though. 13% of rape victims attempt suicide. Suicide attempts have about a 10% success rate. So rape has about a 1.3% chance of killing someone. A single instance of drunk driving is probably safer than that, though if you are limiting this to DUI arrests, then it's a 1-2% chance of involving a death. But the majority of the time the person killed is the driver themselves. So just in terms of deaths caused to other people, rape is more harmful. There's also the trauma from being violated, which happens in 100% of rape cases but not 100% of DUI cases. Most of the time, the driver doesn't hit anyone. But just the fact that 13% of rape victims are so unhappy at some point that they try to kill themselves indicates that rape causes significant trauma.
Welcome to DebateCraft
Best User
whiteflame - For being a top debater and participating pretty consistently in tournaments, as well as significant dedication to modding.
Kohai - For making significant improvements to the site UI.
SatanLucy - For being a very active poster on the forums and in the Discord, as well as high-effort trolling.
Best Debate
Probably biased a bit, but I'm picking UltraRated debates since each side is assigned a random topic and side, so doing well there indicates significant dedication and skill.
Should Legally Recognized Personhood be Extended to Non-Humans?
Pretty good research from both sides. Hyper got an advantage due to framing the debate pretty strongly front, but Kohai put up a good fight on Hyper's terms.
Resolved: The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States ought to be term-limited.
A lot of good research by Hyper, and Nyxified put up a good fight trying to negate the advantage of citing a lot of sources.
THBT: Theism is more likely true than false
Solid job by each side, with both arguing against their personal beliefs.
who I now assume is authentically new
Shoresy is Greyparrot I believe
Thank you for the AI generated text
Just reply with an AI generated counterargument.
Yeah you gotta propose three topics. If you click to be assigned a debate to vote on again you'll get badges for free since there's nothing in the queue.
Well we won't start until all debates have enough votes. And at that point you can get the remaining vote badges for free.
What if the disrespect isn't violent (as it normally isn't)?
I think the concern is that it might inspire violence or discriminatory policies.