A woman’s place is in the home
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
I have an open debate challenge for anyone who can change my mind
I believe that a womans place is in the home cooking cleaning and cuddling I want to be sure that I am right and so am open for discussion please try and change my mind
- Woman - "an adult female human being:" [A]
- Place - "what a person should do or is allowed to do, especially according to the rules of society:" [B]
- Home - "the house, apartment, etc. where you live, especially with your family:" [C]
- Liberty - "the freedom to live as you wish or go where you want:" [D]
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms, without distinction of anykind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, nodistinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional orinternational status of the country or territory to which a person belongs."
" A 2005 analysis of 46 meta-analyses that were conducted during the last two decades of the 20th century underscores that men and women are basically alike in terms of personality, cognitive ability and leadership. Psychologist Janet Shibley Hyde, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison, discovered that males and females from childhood to adulthood are more alike than different on most psychological variables....For example, after participants in one experiment were told that they would not be identified as male or female, nor did they wear any identification, none conformed to stereotypes about their sex when given the chance to be aggressive. In fact, they did the opposite of what would be expected - women were more aggressive and men were more passive."
"The naturalistic fallacy is an informal logical fallacy which argues that if something is ‘natural’ it must be good." [E]
"Ok so it is the evolutionary norm for a woman to stay home men want to spread our dna as much as possible so if a mam has sex with a woman and she dies he has failed so he would protect and provide for her and the child to keep them safe the women would notice this and take care of him in order to help him do his best at protecting and providing for her and her kid "
- Frist off you have failed to define what freedom is freedom in the classical christain definition is the ability to do what you know to be right
- next yay my first argument was kinda flawed but you still have not debunked it all you really did was put words in my mouth I never said women should obey men that’s silly
- next all your arguments seem to argue about obligations by law to society but as one would note my appointment seems to have forgotten about obligations because of decency like don’t be a jerk that’s not a law but you can’t be a jerk ok that’s just fact
- next you seem to forget that women are more naturally more attentive to their children check out this article from forbes 2012 84% of working women told forbes.com that being a stay at home mom is a financial luxury that they aspire to for source https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/09/12/is-opting-out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/?sh=415b2d70623a
- Any way its not really about the mom it’s about what’s right and what is right for any parent well anyone of character would sat the well being of the children based on what my appointment has argued I am inclined to believe that he cares more about the mom than the child this sudy from norway show children of stay at home parents in general have a slightly higher grade point average or GPA then kid of working women https://www.ssb.no/forskning/discussion-papers/_attachment/113165?_ts=13ea1e1e480
- and this study from the United Kingdom shows kids of stay at home moms are less likely to be obese https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329334090_The_impact_of_maternal_employment_on_children's_weight_Evidence_from_the_UK
- also trans women are not women but for the sake of argument let’s bring them in as well ad gay spouses because it works with my broader point which is the children come first
"Frist off you have failed to define what freedom is(.) freedom in the classical christain definition is the ability to do what you know to be right"
"next yay my first argument was kinda flawed but you still have not debunked it all you really did was put words in my mouth I never said women should obey men that’s silly"
next all your arguments seem to argue about obligations by law to society but as one would note my appointment seems to have forgotten about obligations because of decency like don’t be a jerk that’s not a law but you can’t be a jerk ok that’s just fact
next you seem to forget that women are more naturally more attentive to their children check out this article from forbes 2012 84% of working women told forbes.com that being a stay at home mom is a financial luxury that they aspire to for source
"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Given the choice between working or staying home to take care of the house and family, a record-high 66% of U.S. adults would prefer to work. While women's preference to work outside the home (56%) continues to lag behind men's (75%), it is at its highest point in roughly three decades."
"Anyway(,) its not really about the mom(.) It’s about what’s right(,) and what is right for any parent(?) Well(,) anyone of character would say the wellbeing of the child(.) Based on what my opponent has argued(,) I am inclined to believe that he cares more about the mom than the child(.) This sudy from norway show children of stay-at-home parents in general have a slightly higher grade point average or GPA then kids of working women [LINK]
"It is unclear whether an increase in mother’s labor force participation should lead to positive ornegative long-run effects on children. The direction of the effect likely depends on the substitutabilityof parental care (Becker 1981)"
"In Norway, the focus of our study,"
"Yet, some children’s outcomes may improve if workingparents rely on high quality day care programs and after school care (e.g. Blau and Currie 2006).Moreover, to the extent that mother’s employment increases family income, the increased financialresources could have a positive effect on child development"
"and this study from the United Kingdom shows kids of stay at home moms are less likely to be obese https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329334090_The_impact_of_maternal_employment_on_children's_weight_Evidence_from_the_UK"
"employment on children’s weight in the UK, for a large contemporaneous cohort that has grown up in the midst of the childhood ‘obesity epidemic’. Second, it is one of the first papers on this topic to distinguish between mothers who are single and partnered – a key distinction, with just under one quarter of our sample of children raised in a one-parent family. Third, it provides evidence on the mechanisms underlying the effects, adding to the limited body of evidence on this topic.
"Mothers in employment are likely to be different from those not in employment. Such differences, rather than employment, could be influencing child outcomes."
"The study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, concluded that for every one percentage point increase in county-level unemployment between 2008 and 2012, the school children had a 4% increased risk of becoming overweight"
- Contention I - The social contract - Women have no obligation societally to "home"
- Contention II - Liberty - Women have the right to do as they please, as long as it doesn't counteract the law, therefore they do not have to stay "at home"
- Contention III - THE COMPONENT OF NURTURING. - notes that women are not inherently more nurturing than men
- Rebuttal to Pro - the Naturalistic Fallacy- what is natural isn't necessarily right: Pro concedes this
- The interpreted resolution - aside from a term not in this resolution - Pro makes no mention of the resolution, thereby agreeing to it in this debate
see what my opponent has done is first he says I have no source for the definition of freedom I gave I said it was the Christian definition source the church it is not necessary for me to include a source as with anything Christian it can be traced back to the church and bible you don't need a source
next my opponent quotes a piece from the study that comes from explaining why they did the study you can tell because the quote is from an earlier study in 1981 the program used to do the study cash for care was not enacted intel 1998 and was shut down in 2007 for reasons mentioned in the study
further more he continues to put words in my mouth by suggesting I believe women should not have constitutional rights but I never said that and I would hope he stops attacking that straw man and focus on my actual argument
but my opponent has proven to me that he has no regard for the children's well being by insisting the parents are just as or more important then the kids he fails to realize that parents have a responsibility to create a good life for their kids regardless of rather they want to or not its part of the deal he also fails to recognize that the mother of the child would logically be the best care giver to her child ok it is not sexism to be a logical person and say the mother of some-one is the best care giver to them its actually common sense or at least it used to be and who cares if the study was done in Norway what difference does that make?
- Mother prefer out-of-home work
- The article regarding children's grades dropping whenever women work does not factor in equity of employment to children's grades dropping, something which I have demonstrated to be important in a child's grades
- Pro has failed to address almost the entirety of Rebuttal I from last round
- Contention I - The social contract - Women have no obligation societally to "home"
- Contention II - Liberty - Women have the right to do as they please, as long as it doesn't counteract the law, therefore they do not have to stay "at home"
- Contention III - THE COMPONENT OF NURTURING. - notes that women are not inherently more nurturing than men
- no you did not prove that women have constitutional rights because no-one was arguing that they don't this is exactly what I mean by you attacking strawman instead of actually attacking my argument the constitution is a legal document I never said women should be forced by law to stay home so the constitution does not apply here
- source the catechism of the Catholic church https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/e3806e/pdf/#:~:text=1731%20Freedom%20is%20the%20power,one%20shapes%20one's%20own%20life.&text=This%20freedom%20characterizes%20properly%20human,or%20blame%2C%20merit%20or%20reproach. this is the best definition of freedom simply put because the more good you do the less bad clouds your judgment the typical example given is an alcoholic who can not stop drinking he is not free because he can not choose the right option he just keeps drinking and eventually drinks himself to death but by your secular definition he is only free if he gets to drink as much as he wants
- but this hole rights argument from you is flayed to begin with because this is not and was not a legal debate its a social debate so its not really about rights its just about how humans interact with each other it has nothing to do with law it has nothing to do with rights you would not expect to be permitted to walk around in your underwear in public because freedom now would you
- what con fails to realize is when you become a parent you have no right to deny your child what they need to grow into good well rounded adults its not about the parents they knew what they where getting into when the got into bed together its about getting your child the Education the health care and the wisdom to be a kind hard working generous individual a kid is not a pet you don't get a kid for your own enjoyment it is about creating human life and growing that person into a well rounded adult but I am inclined to believe that con would rather have kids be pets to be babysat at a day"care" and sent to a "school" and learn to be good little workers and if their parents don't want them get rid of them or even kill them its the parents right after all you want them to be free right
"what con fails to realize is when you become a parent you have no right to deny your child what they need to grow into good well rounded adults its not about the parents they knew what they where getting into when the got into bed together its about getting your child the Education the health care and the wisdom to be a kind hard working generous individual a kid is not a pet you don't get a kid for your own enjoyment it is about creating human life and growing that person into a well rounded adult but I am inclined to believe that con would rather have kids be pets to be babysat at a day"care" and sent to a "school" and learn to be good little workers and if their parents don't want them get rid of them or even kill them its the parents right after all you want them to be free right " (Pro, #7)
"Take away three things voters: Its based only in UK women and children (not women in general), that Pro's argument here only particularly applies to single mothers, and only slightly, and finally - that the article itself admits its working on limited information - this should - firstly - raise doubt of the actual veracity of Pro's claims - furthermore, the article clearly distinguishes between single parents and spouses, numerously stating that the affect is different based on the study - this just then says that single parents are more likely to have obese children in the UK, nothing else - this also ignores the general "obesity epidemic" which is, in general, the rise of obese children in the UK and America.That means that this article notes a correlation, not causation between working motherhood and staying at home - this could be the effect of other things - such as, in a single-parent household - a lack of income. Or, in general, psychological harm the child has experienced, as the Study fails to actually control for such a thing:"Mothers in employment are likely to be different from those not in employment. Such differences, rather than employment, could be influencing child outcomes."This means that the study is handwaving away the factor of employment entirely, which could change the entire course of the study - as this study notes:"The study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, concluded that for every one percentage point increase in county-level unemployment between 2008 and 2012, the school children had a 4% increased risk of becoming overweight"That would mean that the study that Pro cites does not actually account for one of the known contributors to child obesity, an oversight not their part. Again, however, it fails to argue why the potential overweightness of children in U.K, perhaps, but not most likely, caused by working mothers is more important than the agency of ALL women.(Con, #4)
"source the catechism of the Catholic church https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/e3806e/pdf/#:~:text=1731%20Freedom%20is%20the%20power,one%20shapes%20one's%20own%20life.&text=This%20freedom%20characterizes%20properly%20human,or%20blame%2C%20merit%20or%20reproach. this is the best definition of freedom simply put because the more good you do the less bad clouds your judgment the typical example given is an alcoholic who can not stop drinking he is not free because he can not choose the right option he just keeps drinking and eventually drinks himself to death but by your secular definition he is only free if he gets to drink as much as he wants " (Pro, #7)
"Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act" [LINK]
"but this hole rights argument from you is flayed to begin with because this is not and was not a legal debate its a social debate so its not really about rights its just about how humans interact with each other it has nothing to do with law it has nothing to do with rights you would not expect to be permitted to walk around in your underwear in public because freedom now would you" (Pro, #7)
- Woman - "an adult female human being:" [A]
- Place - "what a person should do or is allowed to do, especially according to the rules of society:" [B]
- Home - "the house, apartment, etc. where you live, especially with your family:" [C]
- Liberty - "the freedom to live as you wish or go where you want:" [D]
(Con, #2)
"Cis-gendered women ought to focus their energy at the place they live." (Con, #2)
- That there are obligations that one owes to their society in order to receive basic rights and cares, and that women have no such obligation to focus their energy at the place they live. Furthermore, that for any society to have this obligation would be breaking a fundamental right that women have - agency.
- Here I provide a syllogism which argues that, even if an individual is unsuited for something, IF you support freedom - THEN you support one's right to do things they aren't suited for. The same would naturally follow for things which people are suited for, having the freedom to not do it.
- I provided a meta-anyaliss and argued that women are not actually any more suited for nurturing children then men are, the only reason they can be, is because they spend significantly more time with children - however - simply pushing for fathers to do the same would rectify this.
Arguments:
Conduct: 1 Point to Pro
RFD: Con tried to avoid poisoning the well, but ended up using an ad hommin attack by calling his opponent sexist. The quote: " Though I should not dwell on this truth of sexism in my opponent in an attempt to not poison the well, it is a truth nonetheless. The history of sexism is all around us, and sexism still permeates throughout our modern world." If I said this about a pro lifer on a hypothetical abortion debate, it would be an ad hommin attack. If con reads this, I should tell con that nobody's opinion justifies ad hommin attacks. Everyone believes in what they believe in for at least one reason. You shouldn't use ad hommin attacks in a debate. Your from rural Texas; most of the people you know are conservative. Is it a good idea to hate almost all the people you know based on opinions? No. It makes you look like an ass.
Arguments: 3 Points to Con
The burden of Proof I think is on Pro as he both wants to change the status quo and advocates for the authoritative stance.
Con's justification for being con to the goalposts of, "A woman’s place is in the home" was that women should not be forced to do something they don't want to do if the victims produced are minimal. Pro's argument that I grasped was that women should be in the home because it would be better for children. However, if it's only slightly better for children, that can't be used to mandate women being in the homes. Otherwise, the same logic can be used to force men to stay home if it betters their kid's life.
Pro's 2nd argument was that 84% of women perfer to be stay at home Moms. I think that 84% can be stay at home moms if they want to. However, just because the majority wants to do something does not mean everyone has to do something. If 90% of black people vote democrat, do they all have to? No! If 84% of women want to stay at home and help their kids, does this mean all women should be legally required to? No! Let people make their own decisions.
Spelling and grammar: Tie. I could fairly well understand both participants.
Sources: Tie. Both participants cite reliably.
Conclusion:
Conduct: 1 Point to Pro
Arguments: 3 Points to Con
Spelling/Grammer: Tie
Sources: Tie.
Final score: Con 3, Pro 1
Because of this, I give Con my vote for this debate
PRO's arguments are short, hard to read, lack substantial evidence and relies on the voter's subjective opinions. His arguments rely on undefined terms like "evolutionary norm" and "the church's teaching" which makes his argument as weak as our loyalty to such concepts. Basically, if you disagree with PRO you have no reason to change your mind after reading this, because PRO never added arguments that are universally valid. On the other hand, CON's arguments were longer, better sourced and more logical. On top of all of this PRO were supposed to prove to me that a women place is in the home. PRO didn't even bother to define "woman place" and what its authority should be. Why must women stay at home simply because "their place" is there? CON did a good job of refuting PRO's arguments and PRO basically conceded by stating he had nothing more to add.
not only does pro have run on sentences that are extremely difficult to parse, his evidence is weak and circumstantial. With con's reasonable appeal to liberty, contract, and pro's lack of tackling *women only* specifically means he completely loses the debate.
Feel free to ask me any questions. Pro's arguments were relatively short and didn't have strong linking, so they were much weaker in terms of showing the resolution.
no my mind has not been changed
So... did I change your mind? You didn't seem to have much of a defence.
I don't believe that you ruling was very well read- you missed half of my points- and all of my naunce.
It seems to me you scanned it more than anything.
I don't think your opponent insulted you during the debate. If you want to exchange insults on the forum, that's free speech, but a debate is not the place to insult your opponent.
Calling my opponent "sexist" is underdoing it - I think the several insults and insinuations made of and to me are more than enough to cancel out any perceived "breach of conduct".
both votes so far (Undefeatable and Benjamin) are insufficient RFDs, I report. I also want to know why my flagging power has been removed for so long.
This may have been edgy and funny in early 2000s but the world has moved tf on. This is just cringe af now.
When I say world, I mean world. Even sexist nations are starting to realise how futile it is to assume all women are equally feminine and wired the same and vice versa for men and masculinity.
This statement probably made millions of homeless women upset.
Oh look, a non-sequitur, consider me surprised.
I always put in the same amount of effort relative to character limit - that won't ever change
Oh no you didn’t thank me what ever shall I do oh I don’t care I have been called a nazi simply for not liking president biden not thanking me is practically a complement
You spent wayyyy too much effort against this guy XD, my opening rounds are only very extensive because I’m the instigator
THe reason I did not thank you for the opportunity to debate is because I find your sexist debate topic very very rage-inducing, I have no pleasure in having to do this debate, though I do get a small amount of cathartics from winning.
Frist off your not the one I am supposed to be debating Im supposed to be debating Theweakeredge who has not posted his argument yet
second in my ideal world homeschooling and private schools are the norm with public education as an alternative for those who can’t and not the primary source of education
And third no we have not “conquered evolution “ that is impossible soon society is going to collapse if we don’t do something about it
Aren't women at home, until they star in kindergarten? Does your Far fetched society necessitate a rejection of such social structures as schools?
Evolution has been conquered by humans. Soon we will change our DNA and optimize functions - rejecting the ways of evolution.
Why obey an impersonal force on a personal level?
Yes no not exactly its better than women going into offices but not ideal
Lmao. Welcome to the site, Mr. Far Right. What is your opinion on women working virtually from home? Is that also their place?
Just put in your best foot with every debate and that will never effect you
Imminent downfall did this once with me about meat industry, and I almost fell for it.
However, Theweakeredge is no such person as he would just take the upper hand and make Pro cry on the ground.
Genius move to do a 500 character argument to fool you opponent into similar laziness and the wallop them in round two with a well researched 30k character argument in round 2
The speed he puts his arguing is comparable to “senna”. Yes.
However, I bet that 100% MrFarright will lose.
Man created a 30,000 character limit for a 500 character argument. Almost like I've senna this before.
Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar right indeed.
"MrFarRight" indeed