Instigator / Pro
10
1597
rating
22
debates
65.91%
won
Topic
#3328

Biological women are psychologically better suited than biological men to raise and care for children.

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
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Novice
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
9
1484
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

Psychology:
The scientific study of mind and behavior.

Psychological:
Affecting, or arising in the mind; related to the mental and emotional state of a person.

Suited:
Right for a particular purpose or situation, because of having all the qualities that are needed

Burden of Proof:
Shared

I do not recall having something against you...

It's just unfortunate, and honestly a disgrace, that people will place personal vandetta, or malice, into a debate vote.
What you have personally against someone stays out of the voting tab. Seriously, do I even have to say this?

"Then pro made a comeback, and you chose to just drop that he had flipped your best source and argument to be directly against you"

Yeah, and that's once again, why RM's vote is incoherent, and just emotionally charged.
He didn't even address how I took CON's strongest argument and turned it completely against them, moving into the next round where CON does not even address this. CON further makes an emotional appeal argument and sevral additonal strawmans (yet RM says I lied about con and provides no examples of course!).
Yes, moving from logic to pure emotion.

Remember, RM said I lied about CON multiple times, yet he provides no examples of this.
RM says I gaslighted CON yet provides no evidence of this.
RM makes emotional flurrys of me being "snarky" and "cocky" as a justification, while I am just making simple claims like, "CON has made easily refutable arguments" and "we can discard most of CON's case because it was irrelevant"

I gave plenty of examples of you lying about con, in quoted snippets, I'd happily extend the vote if it's necessary.

-->
@Yabbie

"Holding down a job or running a successful business is not easy at all and requires learning, responding, planning, social skills and all manner of executive functions. Therefore, my opponent's suggestion that managing financial resources has nothing to do with parents' psychology is simply untrue."

Note the word planning in the above, with direct connections to men being better with money therefore psychologically better suited to raise children. Which you repeated at the end for emphasis:

"Empathy and praise are nice, but they are certainly not the only psychological attributes that contribute to raising kids. Planning skills, fortitude and reason are also important."

...

You deny you moved from logic to emotion, and admit that you indeed made the appeal about the cold starving children, but deny that such an appeal of basically 'think of the children!' has anything to do with pathos... Need I even say it?

-->
@Barney

Actually, I take it back about your phoning it in comments being fair. Given that you obviously skimmed the debate yourself, your criticism is hypocritical and therefore unreasonable.

-->
@Barney

The shivering child comment was sarcasm. Which I would probably have removed had I been editing and going all out. It's always best to remove sarcasm.

-->
@Barney

"You may want to Ctrl+F your own arguments."

Yep, done. I never argued that men are better planners.

"In R2 I thought you would win. Then pro made a comeback, and you chose to just drop that he had flipped your best source and argument to be directly against you."

Do you mean about women being better financial managers? His source and argument were about managing debt (an infomercial for a mortgage service) which I never mentioned. In fact, I never argued for financial management in the first place, but about practical management and providing resources. His objection was irrelevant, a misinterpretation and a red herring so yes, I ignored it

"Yes, you moved to a pathos appeal of imagined cold hungry children, but those don't work on everyone."

It was not pathos at all. I was pointing out the absurdity and weakness of his main argument.

"Moving from logic to pure emotion"

Never happened. You misread this entirely.

"and dropping so much at a critical time, IMO cost you the debate."

This is fair. I had hoped for more interesting opposition and so yes, I did slack off at the end. I 'phoned it in" and I get that someone could be annoyed by that.

-->
@Yabbie

"I would never argue that men are better planners,"

You may want to Ctrl+F your own arguments.

In R2 I thought you would win. Then pro made a comeback, and you chose to just drop that he had flipped your best source and argument to be directly against you. Yes, you moved to a pathos appeal of imagined cold hungry children, but those don't work on everyone. Moving from logic to pure emotion and dropping so much at a critical time, IMO cost you the debate.

-->
@Novice

I passed that vote along to other moderators. These days I pretty much only handle votes if they are very clear cut one way or another. I will say it is unlikely to be removed, as it passes the smell test, so is most likely borderline at worst (borderline votes are by default not removed). But the actual decision on that will come from another moderator who will probably get more in depth.

I should add that different aspects of a debate stand out to different readers, and (in most cases) one voting one way does not challenge the validity of another voting a different way.

-->
@Novice

The very first rebuttal argument you gave was a lie. You misquoted me as saying, "financial resources and patriarchal cultures,"

-->
@Barney

Thanks for voting, I see you are a moderator and I wanted to reiterate that I reported the vote of @Rational Madman for a few reasons
1) It shows considerable bias
2) It is incoherent, and hardly even provides specific reasons fro decisions, as yours did, and most votes do.
3) It shows a clear mis-understanding of the resolution of the debate, and igores most of my arguments, while glorifying CON's arguments.

Observe this quote
"Pro retorts to this by... lying about Con every single Round, which is why I docked the conduct mark. It's one thing to flex and paint a biased image but we are talking constant gaslighting and lying about what Con has said or done"

RM, says I was lying about CON every single round and provides no examples of this.
RM says I gaslishted CON and provides to examples of this.

As a whole, RM does not coherently explain is vote, and he hardly even speaks about the arguments made.
Please remove this vote.

Thats why I reported it.

-->
@Yabbie

Please don't even try. You lost the debate period, it wasn't even close. The issue is Rational Madman has some personal vandetta that he wanted to get accross in his vote I guess.

-->
@Novice

I don't know your history, of course, but it didn't seem personally malicious to me. Especially because RM is not one to hold back. If he had a problem with you, he'd just say so, I think.

Also, with all kindness, your arguments were paper thin.

-->
@RationalMadman

I reported your vote honestly. You could tell it was extremely biased, and that you cleraly had no understanding of the resolution.
It seems personally malicious.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Barney

Yeah, I feel like he misread it. I would never argue that men are better planners, not even as devil's advocate. Just one example, but there are distortions all through the rfd imo. But it's true I slacked off in the final round, and military types can't stand arrogant-lazy energy. Hence the phoned it in comments, I'm thinking. 💜

-->
@Barney
@Yabbie

that's one of his worst votes ever actually, pretty shocking how he forgets how Pro never touched your case overall.

-->
@Barney

Thanks for voting. I completely disagree! But thanks for the explanation.

I can't tell if you're joking or not. Time will tell I guess.

I was hesitant for fear of getting him in trouble though...

As I was saying, best to report this obviously wrong vote to the propper authorities.

-->
@Novice

To be "safe"? From what?

-->
@Novice

"something" doesn't seem right? What something? RM's vote was almost flawless.

Yeah, read the whole vote. Something doesn't seem right. Im reporting just to be safe.

-->
@RationalMadman

The reason for I listed to discared the round one case was that the "patriarchy" or being wealthy doesn't relate to psycology. It says so in the same like that you sai I didn't mention the reason.
Seems like a bad vote, thumbs down.

-->
@RationalMadman

Thank you for your voting comments. Your depth of analysis is astonishing, honestly.

Anyone feel free to vote, if you wish!!!

-->
@Novice

I'll look at it, but I'm pretty busy rn

-->
@BearMan

Would you be interested in voting again?

ok.

I'll address your arguments next round. Don't mind, I didn't see them before I posted.

Lol what? Oof. I thought i had to post first and only had 10 minutes. Got that wrong! I'm the real novice here.

Oh no! I thought you were arguing first! But it's me!

-->
@Novice

Nttp 😊

-->
@Yabbie

Thank you for accepting. Game on.

Stick solely to the word 'raise' (as opposed to care for AND raise ) and I'm more open to accepting it but I will wait as I want a better idea of your ability and style to know how to predict and counter you.

I await anyone to kindly accept this debate.