the world would be better if ruled by women.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...
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
it is a complex vote, you never defined 'better' and I want to be precise on why the winner won.
3 days. This vote realistically shouldn't take more than 10 minutes to cast.
Neither side successfully defined 'better' in this entire debate nor properly connected their case back to said qualitative measure. This means the debate is actually tied but neither side wants that so I'll look further.
Just to be clear, I am 100% serious when I say that this debate can be considered a semantics-based tie due to that. Not even the description of the debate properly explored what classifies one thing as better than another or not.
Con's case is basically an extremely defensive Kritik repeated over and over. The idea in Con's case is that he will concede that women lead more cooperatively and then deny that this is better.
Pro's case is that women lead more cooperatively and result in less wars but the biggest issue is that his case transforms into one about primitive humans being superior to modern civlisations in their leadership style.
One thing to consider, just as a reader without noticing Con's rebuttals, is that primitive humans were brutally masculine and aggressive in how they were led, compared to now.
What happens though, is that Pro doesn't properly tackle what Con throws at him. For starters, Pro never quite addresses the idea that Con presents regarding the matter of men and women not needing to be an either/or thing.
What Pro could have done is accuse Con of semantics abuse, pointing out that some in the leadership could still be men, it's a question of if it was mainly women (or even only women) would it be better, not if this was the absolute best.
Currently, the world has a lot of male adults but just as Con later points out, to say women should lead instead because there'll be less wars could be considered akin to saying sea slugs leading will result in less wars.
Pro does point out that unlike women, sea slugs won't communicate properly with humans however the overall gist of Con's case is that Pro's singular approach (the less wars angle) can't simply be the way we determine that if all leaders were women, the world will be better off.
Both sides truly failed to define or link to what 'better' is, I note that Con actually didn't prove what's truly better about the world led by men nor a mix but Pro's case takes too many strange twists and turns to be deemed valid. Whatever Con throws at Pro, Pro just tries to avoid, instead of pushing further on why the resolution is true he keeps focusing on why the reason it's wrong isn't too much of a reason.