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
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

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.

-->
@Barney

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.

-->
@gugigor

**************************************************
>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.,
**************************************************

-->
@Barney

Thank you for voting

-->
@MisterChris

"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"

-->
@Death23
@fauxlaw
@Undefeatable

**************************************************
>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.

-->
@Undefeatable

Thank you

Undefeatable's vote has been deleted per their own request.

-->
@Death23

ah, I misinterpreted the 43% idea. Con's case had me scratching my head for sure.

-->
@Undefeatable

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.

-->
@Death23

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.

-->
@Undefeatable

Thanks for voting

-->
@Undefeatable

"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.

-->
@fauxlaw

Well I'm sure Ragnar will save us if nobody else does

-->
@Death23

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.

-->
@fauxlaw

Oh, it's not objectively related. It's just an internal tangle of thoughts, feelings, experiences and such.

-->
@Death23

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.

-->
@fauxlaw

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.

-->
@Death23

"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.

-->
@Death23

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! >:^)

-->
@bmdrocks21

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

-->
@Death23

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.

-->
@bmdrocks21

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.

-->
@Death23

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 :)

-->
@fauxlaw

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.

-->
@Death23

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.