Instigator / Pro
0
1493
rating
3
debates
16.67%
won
Topic

the world would be better if ruled by women.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Voting points
0
1

With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

Bones
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Judicial decision
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
1
1701
rating
18
debates
100.0%
won
Description
~ 250 / 5,000

If only women ruled the world, society would be better than it is today.
definitions:
world = total set of states.
society = set of human interactions.

rules:
the burden of proof is equal for both parties.
my opponent must adhere to the definitions.

Round 1
Pro
Thanks for accepting the debate, but I must admit something, I'm scared, bones is incredibly good at debating, better than me, without a doubt.
my opening argument will be the following:
1. With more cooperative rulers, wars occur less.
2. a world with fewer wars is a better world.
3. women are more cooperative.
4. a world where women rule would be a better world.

For the first premise we have the scientific evidence, in 2011 UNESCO reviewed 200 groups of primitive humans, and none showed signs of having participated in a war, that was at a time when humans had no choice but to cooperate to face the natural hazards.
For 2 we can use reasoning, clearly wars cause damage, a world with fewer wars is a better world, the Muslim invasions of India caused 600 million deaths, the First World War 100 million, the Cold War 60 million, and so I can continue all day.

on women's cooperativity we have a lot of data:
women are more empathetic (so it is more likely that they share the feelings of the other, and choose to cooperate, so that the other does not lose so much).
once the premises are fulfilled, the conclusion is true.

Con
thx elhombremasinteligente, for your kind words. Truth be told, this topic is very foreign to me so you may have the familiarity advantage here.  

--

General refutation 

PRO's syllogism

1. With more cooperative rulers, wars occur less.
2. a world with fewer wars is a better world.
3. women are more cooperative.
4. a world where women rule would be a better world.

Overall, my opposition's syllogism is decent, except for its non sequential conclusion. Notice how my opponent measures "better" by the number of wars a nation is involved in. Whilst being free of international conflict is good thing, it is not the only metric that should be used to compare the "betterness" of a country. Compare, for example, our civilisation with primitive humans, of which my opponent rightly points out, show no sign of having participated in war. Should we be anti-evolving into primitive humans because they have less conflict? 

Furthermore, if we were to utilize my oppositions logic, our nation should employ primitive humans as our leaders, as 

1. With more cooperative rulers, wars occur less.
2. a world with fewer wars is a better world.
3. primitive humans are more cooperative.
4. a world where primitive humans rule would be a better world.

Obviously, my opponents flaw is magnified. Having no wars is definitely a good thing, but not at the cost of "de-evolutioning". To take my opponents one step further, we would be justified in killing every person on the planet, on the basis that if everyone were dead, the number of wars would plummet to 0. 

-

Contention 1: PRO's proposition is sexist and discriminatory. 

The American Psychological Association published an article, Men and Women: No Big Difference, concluding: “Studies show that one's sex has little or no bearing on personality, cognition and leadership.” Through cooperation is a good metric of measuring one's leadership, leadership itself is better for measuring ones leadership capabilities. As studies have shown that there are no big differences between the leadership abilities of men and women, both should have the right to be in positions of power. To create a world where only women can be leaders is to sacrifice democracy, as people are not given the choice to vote for the candidate they want. 

Furthermore, imagine if my opponent's position were that only European (white) people could be leaders, and that black people could not be leaders. Obviously, regardless of whether black people are or are not more cooperative than Europeans, this does not suggest that we should ban black people from positions of political power. Even if we were to accept that women are superior leaders (they are not), to ban all men from becoming leaders is still discrimination. 
Round 2
Pro
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, napoleon bonaparte was undoubtedly a great leader who brought great benefits to the French empire, that does not change that it represents a lot of harm to the world in general, and that It was precisely due to their lack of cooperation, their argument about racism is correct, but irrelevant, if I say that Europeans are less violent than blacks, this could be considered racism, but that does not mean that what I said is racism.
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?

Con
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.
I have already shown that measuring the welfare of a country based on the number of wars they have is inefficient. To use my opponents own claim,  primitive humans have shown no signs of having participated in a war, yet one would hardly argue that the overall well-being of a primitive human is greater than a technologically advanced human being. Furthermore, as I stated in my opening, were we to measure welfare on the number of wars a nation participates in, we would be justified in killing the entire world, as this immediately mean that all wars cease. 

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
This claim is purely hypothetical and unsourced. 

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.
This was a hypothetical situation. Moreover, the government could, if they were to adopt your model, drop a nuclear bomb on every major city, thereby essentially incapacitating the worlds function to trade and communicate, which would lead to the end of civilisation. Under my opponents model, which is that no wars = good society, we could kill everyone and create 0 wars. 

leadership skills are not really that good at measuring the benefit of the world in general
To simplify, I'll offer this argument as a syllogism. 

p1. People who have leadership skills are good at being good leaders. 
c1. Therefore, men and women are good leaders. 

The question of democracy is interesting, but, is it objectively wrong to sacrifice democracy?
None of this is objective, but from the perspective of maximising well-being, democracy is integral. Democracy has played a vital role in the story of civilisation, helping transform the world from power structures of monarchy, empire, and conquest into popular rule, self-determination, and peaceful co-existence. Though it isn't objectively wrong to sacrifice democracy (very few things are objective), it is for our society.  

If you were a ship, who would you prefer to direct it, the most popular or the most qualified to direct the ship?
I would look at qualification, not other factors such as gender. 


Round 3
Pro
You showed that measuring the well-being of a country based on the number of wars is insufficient, but not ineffective, and in any case, measuring the well-being of the world in general by the tendency towards wars if it is effective, the reason is that if it is comes to unleash a third world war we would be facing a mass extinction event, by the way, there are people who would defend that primitive humans had a higher level of well-being
Although I admit that my statement is hypothetical, there are good reasons to believe it, humans could not survive natural hostility without teamwork.
the problem with your hypothetical situation is that it only proves that my judgment might be wrong, not that my judgment is wrong.
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.
On the other hand, you start by assuming that the monarchy is worse than popular control for human well-being, but this is something you have to prove, for your part imperialism and conquest continue to exist with democracy, and peaceful coexistence together self-determination already existed before democracy.
Exactly, you would look at the rating, in democracy what matters is popularity.

Con
You showed that measuring the well-being of a country based on the number of wars is insufficient, but not ineffective
I have shown that it is ineffective, because if we were to measure well-being on number of wars, sea slugs would be rated above us. 

there are people who would defend that primitive humans had a higher level of well-being
The work my opponent provided is a manifesto written by a lad named "unabomber". It is neither scientific nor trustworthy. 

If countries drop a nuclear bomb on every major city, they will soon have a social and economic crisis leading to civil wars.
No, they will all die. 

his syllogism is correct, the problem is that better leaders do not equate to greater well-being for the world in general.
To recall, my opponent admits that the following 

p1. People who have leadership skills are good at being good leaders. 
c1. Therefore, men and women are good leaders. 

is true however believes that being a leader does not mean that you will be a great leader. This is clearly nonsensical. The label "good leader" is given to those who show integrity, accountability, empathy, humility, resilience, vision, influence, and positivity. It is clear that these traits will enables one to make good decisions, hence them being labeled good leaders. 

My opponent drops my point on discrimination and sexism hence I extend. 

To note, the contention in this debate seems to be over what makes a good leader. I propose that leadership is key, whilst my opponent makes the case that empathy and compassion are more important. Were we to use this logic, we should ban men and women from positions of power, and instead elect children, as they are more prone to being empathic and moral. Is this what my opponent wants? 



Round 4
Pro
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.

Con
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.
And yet none of this is a reason for us to vote for sea slugs as our presidents. To recall, this point was made in response to your logic that if a particular group of beings do not engage in conflict, they should be leaders. Thus I made the following comparison 

PRO's logic: Women cooperate more and thus will not have wars. Therefore, as they will not have wars and this is a good thing, we should vote women. 
CON's response: Sea Slugs cooperate more and thus will not have wars. Therefore, as they will not have wars and this is a good thing, we should vote Sea Slugs. 

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.
It is not enough just give me a manifesto and say "if you don't read it then my claim stands". You bear the burden as you brought the source and thus it is your obligation to show me where you find his argument compelling. I do not need to prove negatives. 

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.
But this is completely not my claim, I asserted that people who are good leaders are good leaders. This is a tautological truth which you are yet to refute.

leadership is key as leaders of each individual people, but not as benefactors of humanity.
This makes no sense at all. What is a leader of each individual people? This is not what I defined leader as. A leader is the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country. It is not a leader of individual people. If a study shows that people have good leadership skills, it means that they display characteristics which help them lead or commands a group, organization, or country.

Throughout history, there have been children who have ruled, in general, their reigns have not been bad.
This is a hasty generalisation fallacy. Just because there are some child leaders, does not mean that most children have the ability to lead countries. 

Round 5
Pro
First of all, my argument is not that they should, but that the world would be a better place, second, the logic of sea slugs cannot rule, since they are unable to communicate or give information, so sea slugs maybe they are more cooperative with each other, but they certainly are with us, again, this counterargument does not apply.
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

Of course it is not his statement, it is my statement, and it is correct since a leader who is good at leading some people can still be destructive to others, I must not refute something that is not only true, but does not contradict my point.
a leader of an individual town is a leader of a place that is not divisible in several towns, let's not forget the etymological meaning of individuals (indivisible).
Most of the children mentioned did not rise to power because they were selected through an in-depth analysis of abilities, but because their parents died, a random form of selection, which can be used to say that most children probably had similar abilities.
I appreciate that someone of a level as high as yours agreed to debate with me.

Con
First of all, my argument is not that they should, but that the world would be a better place
This too me seems a semantic nit pick. Obviously, if you think the world is a better place with X, you would think that X should be implemented. Nevertheless, I can simply adjust my argument in a way where it would facilitate the term "better place". For example: 

PRO's logic: Women cooperate more and thus will not have wars. Therefore, as they will not have wars and this is a good thing, voting for women will create a better place. 
CON's response: Sea Slugs cooperate more and thus will not have wars. Therefore, as they will not have wars and this is a good thing, voting for sea slugs will create a better place. 

Obviously, there are other factors besides cooperation which my opponent has neglected. Factors such as leadership, which studies indicate men and women are both equally capable of. 

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
You're initial claim was that primitive humans have a higher level of well-being. Regardless of whether an increase in comfort results in boredom and depression, this does not support your primary claim.

second, the logic of sea slugs cannot rule, since they are unable to communicate or give information
Exactly my point. There are other factors which need to be considered, such a communication skills, when considering how good a potential candidate is you cannot simply look at cooperation, which you seem to be doing. When we do consider these other factors, we find that men and women are equally good leaders. 

it is correct since a leader who is good at leading some people can still be destructive to others
Here, my opponent redefines what being a leader is. Having leadership skills does not mean that you are only good at leading some people, having leadership skills means that you are, on balance, a competent leader. When my scientific study indicates that men are women are equally good leaders, this does not mean that they are only good at leading X people, it means that they are good leaders. 

I wish to add that my opponent has dropped my argument about this rule being blatantly sexist and discriminatory against men. 

Thx for a good debate.