2 years ago
Which side makes a better case?
avatar
56 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    Clara Barton was on the battlefield at Antietam. Fact.

  • 2 years ago

    Well that was fun. Thanks, @theantifeminist !

    • 2 years ago

      @citizenthom As I said in another comment, I won't be passive aggressive like you. You acted like a child and your "debating" was nothing more than childish pounding of fists.

      I did not have "fun" being mocked and strawmaned by you for 45 minutes.

  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @benmouse42 Thanks for the feedback, Ben!

    • 2 years ago

      @benmouse42 after rewatching this @theantifeminist clearly had a better argument. @citizenthom was using emotional redhearings that never answered to how radical feminists today seek an outcome of revenge and hatred, not the equality of predecessors. And although, it probably isn't the best strategy and never changed anyone's mind, I think it's a good idea to point out the known methods of false reasoning here, even if the Pro side had a few faults of there own. The Con side was very negative and angry and needed to hear it.

    • 2 years ago

      @julian One of the main issues I had was that the methods of false reasoning given were just incorrectly applied and often could be applied to his own reasoning.

      By no means was this a slam dunk by either side so I wouldn't call it clear, but your comment doesn't really tell me what you thought of the arguments.
      - Most of your criticism of the con side is that he was too emotional, well I mean, c'mon, that's an ad-hominem. Debates on serious issues are supposed to get you angry, that's how you know you disagree with your opponent seriously.
      - There are a wealth of axiomatic assumptions behind the claim that radicals seek an outcome of revenge that were never proven (e.g. That the motivation is actually revenge, that their relative impact is enough to outweigh the other rather tangible benefits the con side put forward)

    • 2 years ago

      @benmouse42 I was just thinking about how I may have been a little too harsh here. So I extend an apology. I remember liking how you pointed out it goes both ways. And your argument against "revenge" is the best that I've heard anywhere.

    • 2 years ago

      @julian all g! I don't mind harshness, it's good to put the strongest claim forward and see how much of it is true.
      I'd be keen to see this debate done again sometime in the future

    • 2 years ago

      @theantifeminist Let's see...

      Source 1: "While younger women in their 20s came out top in the earning stakes, the story was vastly different for workers in their 30s. A man turning 30 in 2006 would have brought in on average £8,775 more than a woman of the same age." (Also not clear if the data is limited to the UK or not as it is a UK source)

      Source 2: "Women in their 20s, single, childless, in metropolitan areas" (in the U.S.)

      Source 3: wage gap still exists after adjusting for educational and occupational difference, it's just smaller.

      Source 4: opinion piece from a clickbait source. Come on, bruh.

    • 2 years ago

      @citizenthom You rely completely on logical fallacies. Males possess more strength and intelligence and willingness to sacrifice in general, so it's consistent that equal opportunity will not ensure equal outcome.

    • 2 years ago

      @budgethandy "Males possess more strength and intelligence and willingness to sacrifice in general"

      Objective measurement?

    • 2 years ago

      @citizenthom Willingness to sacrifice more is objectively recognized by longer hours, higher tolerance for risk and dangerous jobs, etc. Intelligence is assessed by IQ results and academic outcome in STEM subjects. Males possess superior strength in general as well. The Anti-Feminist completely exposed your total reliance on logical fallacies. Feminism is also toxic because it promotes the idiocy of logical fallacies and outright lying to defend the untenable.

    • 2 years ago

      @budgethandy But where is your evidence of 1. Males' superior physical strength and intellectual prowess, 2.) males' higher tolerance for risk vs. employers' unwillingness to hire females for riskier jobs, or 3.) superior STEM performance by women (the opposite was actually an element of my opponent's argument)? Do you have data, or are you just upset that there are, in fact, women smarter and stronger than you?

    • 2 years ago

      @citizenthom What means other than left-wing feminist fantasy do you use to maintain delusional denial of reality?

    • 2 years ago

      @budgethandy His extreme cognitive dissonance and laughable anecdotal evidence seem to satisfy him.

    • 2 years ago

      @citizenthom the sole difference is childbearing. Women tend to stop working and take time off for children putting the far behind men. They also work ~20% less hours per week and take much more time off due also to children. The entire argument boils down to choices and men and women make different choices. Men tend towards money while women tend towards self fulfillment in careers.

    • 2 years ago

      @citizenthom if you question the very basic and obvious Fact that men are stronger than women you have many other issues.
      2016 Olympic 84 Men came in ahead of the first woman. Bolt runs a 9.69 while no woman has ever broken 10. Average male is ~5'10" & ~200lbs while the average female is ~5'"4 and ~140lbs.
      Men are simply more physically built than women.

  • 2 years ago

    @theantifeminist is such a whiny bitch! Lololol.

    Also, female associate attorneys do not work less hours, and we aren't less skilled or less good with the clients. There's a mountain of research on why discrimination in the workplace by male bosses, and particularly conservative male bosses, ends up disproportionately affecting women and minorities. I'd be happy to share it with you if you actually want some hard science.

    • 2 years ago

      @jessicarogers24 It's ironic that the female ATTORNEYS that work such longer hours don't use, I dont know, their freaking job to do something about it. Sounds more like they are probably not picked for the job and hence blame sexism or discrimination.

      Or maybe they act like a child like you and name call when they don't hear what they want.

  • 2 years ago

    Every debate of citizenthom is just logically pathetic, I really don't know who these people who vote for him are - maybe family and friends? Just a few obvious logical failures:

    - A lack of female presidents in a democratic system does not mean there is a patriarchy.

    - Wage gap is a known debunked myth

    - Mischaractarizing the modern 3rd-wave feminism that we have today with your general understanding of feminism as a simplified idea.

    - "enslavement" was being used metaphorically.

    - Saying, "they're lazy" is speaking contextually and exclusively for certain ones that sway the aggregate - not that it's being implied ALL women are lazy.

    - "you should have pulled out", "keep it in your pants" is not a counter argument to a lack reproduction rights

    Really a shame he even won that last trivial "bigfoot" debate.

    • 2 years ago

      @boredddddd666 why don't you debate @citizenthom if you think he's a bad debater?

    • 2 years ago

      @boredddddd666 Cash me on Qallout, how bow da?

    • 2 years ago

      @yaz I think you answered your own question. I surely will be avoiding future debates with him as well.

      Also, judging my the comments here, he sure seems to bring out the worst kind of "supporters."

      I've had several of these debates and never had the comments get this toxic.

    • 2 years ago

      @boredddddd666 This debate was not restricted to "third-wave feminism." @theantifeminist could easily have chosen to limit the scope of his claims to that particular ideology. He did not. That's his/your fault, not mine. I was placed in the position of arguing that feminism, PERIOD, is harmful--not pointless, not outdated, HARMFUL--to society, PERIOD. if you want to defend a narrow proposition, make a narrow assertion. This is debate 101.

    • 2 years ago

      @theantifeminist My observation during prep for this debate was that your opponents have been far too interested in looking moderate or "reasonable" when you say outrageous and indefensible things, and too willing to let you talk over them. If you are not willing to debate someone who actually intends to defeat you, that's fine.

    • 2 years ago

      @citizenthom And if you had been capable of staying on topic and discussing feminism, not women's history, we would have gotten somewhere. Instead you kept making non-sequiturs and discussing things that weren't feminism but you could shoehorn into talking about feminism to fit your delusional narrative.

      You were incapable of staying on topic and towards the end you CONTINUOUSLY strawmanned me and my arguments and even laughed when I tried to tell a personal story about a girl aborting without my knowledge.

      You acted like a child and couldn't discuss the topic and instead chose to try and go on tangents about things that were totally unrelated to the subject at hand. You couldn't even stay focused on the PRESENT because it didn't fit your narrative.

      I agree with @boredddddd666. You can try and blame me, or him?, for your incompetence but in the end YOU were incapable of discussing the subject and YOU acted like an overdramatic child who wanted to try and twist the discussion away from the topic and into a small and narrow view. YOU were incapable of defending your position and so you resorted to logical fallacies and being a drama queen, ie sighing loudly, putting your face in your hands and laughing like a lunatic when I tried to tell a difficult personal story to explain how wrong your delusions are in the real world.

      I won't be passive aggressive like you. I refuse to debate someone who can't make their argument without personally attacking, mocking and strawmanning their opponent while being overly dramatic.

      To quote the late great Christopher Hitchens, "You give me the awful impression, I hate to have to say it, of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position, ever."

    • 2 years ago

      @theantifeminist You make these accusations of "straw manning" when we've establish that the basic problem with your entire argument is your attack on feminism, is based on a straw man version of feminism you created.

      I believe refusing to debate someone who will actually challenge your baseless and often misogynistic assertions as baseless and misogynistic, IS the passive-aggressive response. I stand ready to debate your premise as stated with anyone who is actually willing to defend that proposition rather than attacking a nonexistent straw man.

    • 2 years ago

      @citizenthom One more time, just in case you are so confident in your ignorance you decide to only read part of my responses...

      "You give me the awful impression, I hate to have to say it, of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position, ever."

    • 2 years ago

      @theantifeminist I will admit, I am not well-versed in misogynistic screeds against the idea that women should be treated equally to men, both by the government and in civil society. I prefer fact, truth, and respect.

    • 2 years ago

      @citizenthom You're pathetic. You want an example of a strawman, what you just said is yet another.

      Grow up and read a book by someone that doesn't espouse your ignorant viewpoint already. You're not impressing anyone with your cognitive dissonance and inability to see things differently than you say they are.

    • 2 years ago

      @theantifeminist Ironic that you accuse me of being unable to see the other side of arguments when I just won money on here arguing two sides of three different issues.

      The problem with the view you are espousing is that it is not based on rational thought. To see "the other side" you have to adopt the other side's skewed interpretation of reality. If understanding your side requires me to sacrifice basic decency* and rationality, then the cost of understanding you is too high and the benefit too low.

      *edited

    • 2 years ago

      @citizenthom I didn't imply the debate was restricted to "third-wave feminism" only that you were misrepresenting what feminism is when you pick and choose things to define it and also when you try to extend that ideology to real life examples. But you would have lost either position...

    • 2 years ago

      @theantifeminist that's not what I meant.. I meant the other user should debate @citizenthom if he/she thinks he's logically pathetic , only a live debate can put someone's logic to the test.

    • 2 years ago

      By other user I mean @boredddddd666 ...

    • 2 years ago

      @twindekn Because I'm not a professional victim and don't see my own race/religion/gender as a crutch to beat others with during a debate.

      It's divisive and Stephen Colbert is a pseudo-intellectual.

    • 2 years ago

      @twindekn People always ridicule when someone says, "I don't see color" because they're too stupid to not take it literally and understand it as a metaphor for placing human life above race, sex, religion, where it is equal to everyone else..

    • 2 years ago

      @boredddddd666 No, I think we realize that people who say they don't see color think they are being really profound. In reality, it's a really stupid assertion and they should think of something better to say.

  • 2 years ago

    Feminism is the brainchild of the Frankfurt Illuminati, designed specifically to separate the sexes in the Western world and through that, dismantle the nuclear family--the fundamental "unit" of our civilization. Without being able to rely on each other, and on our families, it increases dependence on government and that is, and has always been, their ultimate aim--a global slave population under the heavy yoke of government.

    • 2 years ago

      How are women propagating a useless Feminism, in Western societies in which they already have more rights than men, "helping" women in the third world?

      • 2 years ago

        17 minutes in and @theantifeminist 's opponent refuses to talk about modern America. On some level, he knows that he's wrong and that's why he had to keep the conversation focused on the past.

        • 2 years ago

          @deusvult THIS. It's why he refused to even talk about America, the country that my side of the debate centered around. He, deep down, knows that women have it better and for some reason, maybe his wife's boyfriend's encouragement, decided to keep attacking me on a personal level while refusing to debate the actual subject at hand.

        • 2 years ago

          @deusvult My opponent did not limit his premise to "modern America" or any specific branch of "feminism." He made it about feminism, period, harmful, period, to society, period. Limit definitions if you want, but do so on the front end. I would not have accepted a debate arguing his straw man form of feminism is anything real, let alone harmful to all society period.

        • 2 years ago

          @citizenthom Pretty sure the debate topic is "our" society, but to be fair I only believe that because it's exactly what it says.

        • 2 years ago

          @deusvult But the "our/we" is not limited by the prompt. This site has debaters living in Europe, Asia, Australia, possibly even Africa and the Middle East. Furthermore even if we are talking about here in America, we do not live in a vacuum: our society is influenced by more than just what happens here. Indeed, that fact could have been used to my opponent's advantage if he could cite examples of actual male subjugation due to feminism in other countries, and I would have been unable to rebuff him since I took the position that feminism is a positive for global society.

          Look, if either, or any, of you is under the impression that I dogmatically support feminism just because I found my opponent's particular points lacking, disabuse yourself of that notion by watching my other debates from the tournament. My style is either to stake a specific position and to defend it, including clarifying where nuance is necessary to limit it; or to select a position I believe to be indefensible AS STATED, to listen to the stated underlying logic, and to criticize it. I'm not going to be lenient when someone makes a broad assertion, builds a straw man to address instead of the broad assertion, and gets angry when his basic premise is criticized.

          If you want better opposing arguments, make better prime arguments.

        • 2 years ago

          @citizenthom I mean yeah, or you could have just refuted his points with actual points instead of misdirection and anger.

        • 2 years ago

          @deusvult Anger? You're never going to see me "angry" online, man. Passionate, yes. Angry? Nah.

        • 2 years ago

          @citizenthom Ok, you still didn't refute his points though.

      • 2 years ago

        Destroyed. The argument stands.

        • 2 years ago

          Full of conjecture from both sides.

          • 2 years ago

            honestly, theantifeminist was just loud. He looked at the small picture. I still voted that he won but he didnt make too many great points. Just aggressive ones.