the world would be better if ruled by women.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
If only women ruled the world, society would be better than it is today.
world = total set of states.
society = set of human interactions.
the burden of proof is equal for both parties.
my opponent must adhere to the definitions.
Although he is right that it is not the only way to measure the welfare of a country if it is the best way to measure the welfare of the general set of states, especially considering our degree of arms progress.
In the case of primitive humans, they were more cooperative because they had to be, in a situation where they are not forced to be it is unlikely that they are more cooperative than modern humans
you cannot start killing all humans without creating a war in the process, if for example I begin to kill a family, and the family defends itself, we would have a war between myself and the family, so it would be impossible to achieve that degree of wars or if we kill everybody.
leadership skills are not really that good at measuring the benefit of the world in general
The question of democracy is interesting, but, is it objectively wrong to sacrifice democracy?
If you were a ship, who would you prefer to direct it, the most popular or the most qualified to direct the ship?
You showed that measuring the well-being of a country based on the number of wars is insufficient, but not ineffective
there are people who would defend that primitive humans had a higher level of well-being
If countries drop a nuclear bomb on every major city, they will soon have a social and economic crisis leading to civil wars.
his syllogism is correct, the problem is that better leaders do not equate to greater well-being for the world in general.
And if you think about it, sea slugs have a higher welfare than us, they have existed much longer than us, and they have never been at risk of extinction, unlike us, as I say, you have shown that it is not the only criterion , but failed to show that it is inefficient, since in most cases, countries with fewer wars will have more welfare.
His second argument is an ad hominem, a bomber had high university studies, and if you take the trouble to read the manifesto, you will see that it was very objective.
The problem however is that the characteristics that you mention refer to the relationship of a leader with each specific people, which means that a good leader can perfectly destroy other peoples and continue to be so.
leadership is key as leaders of each individual people, but not as benefactors of humanity.
Throughout history, there have been children who have ruled, in general, their reigns have not been bad.
First of all, my argument is not that they should, but that the world would be a better place
ted kaczinsky's manifesto is based on the fact that an increase in comfort increases boredom and with it depression, there are studies that indicate this
second, the logic of sea slugs cannot rule, since they are unable to communicate or give information
it is correct since a leader who is good at leading some people can still be destructive to others