Instigator / Pro
0
1492
rating
335
debates
40.9%
won
Topic
#3657
The woman is made for the man.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 28,888
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1706
rating
33
debates
80.3%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
The woman is made for the man. Namely the female made for the male genitalia. The female genitalia made for the male thereby introducing no other design or make for the woman.
Which would exclude lesbianism or anything else as a mechanical contraception would be inappropriate .
Once again, this may be hit on the nose clear, hence not being controversial but I'm testing the waters. Possibly somebody might try to find a problem with it somewhere.
Questions, comments, I always encourage questions like a scientist. They start off with a question from observation, that question is going into a hypothesis and or theory. Then to test a concept , move in to experimenting to pull facts.
So any questions, leave it in the comments or send a message.
Learning time.
Round 1
The woman is made to accommodate the man's phallus.
The woman is made to accommodate the man's semen.
The woman is made to accommodate the man's sperm.
The woman is made to accommodate the carrying of the seed, offspring, baby , etc.
Everything fits just as straightforward as that .
I could elaborate more than that but I don't assume a lack of knowledge from the other side.
For clarity though, the woman is made meaning designed for.
What part of her design?
Namely the genitalia like I forestated. Like the part of the lock designed or made to accommodate the key .
Forfeited
Round 2
Everything thus far put forth corroborates.
I guess we can now look at some objections like a woman who is deformed.
Perhaps missing or has a poorly developed reproductive system.
Females that are born this way have what's called a birth defect.
They weren't made without but made with a defect.
Like a defective lock.
Resolution: The woman is made for the man.
Roadmap:
- Definitions
- Interpretation of the Resolution
- Constructive
- Rebuttal
- Conclusion
Definitions
My opponent has not offered a single definition to support their resolution, as such, until the pro can offer opposing definitions, and until pro can offer a valid argument for their validity over mine, voters should defer to my definitions by default.
Make: verb. "to produce; cause to exist or happen; bring about:" [1]
Woman: noun. "an adult female person" [3]
Person: noun. "a human being, whether an adult or child" [4]
Evolve: verb. "to develop gradually:" [5]
Interpretation of the Resolution
"The woman is made for the man" Or, using my definition in substitute for "made", "The woman is produced; caused to exist or happened; brought about, for the man." In other words: women are caused to exist, this is not implied about 'the man' from the resolution, they are also caused for a purpose, man. So then, the assumptions that pro must demonstrate are twofold.
- That "the woman" is indeed caused to exist, created.
- That "the woman" was caused to exist for "the man"
Constructive (against the resolution)
I. I posit the fact that people, which would include women (recall Definitions), were not created in the first place. [1a]
"Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years."
I would instead argue that people evolved (recall Definitions). Which is to say, I argue that humans were not produced necessarily, instead they developed gradually over many years from natural selection [2a] and the like.
"In natural selection, genetic mutations that are beneficial to an individual's survival are passed on through reproduction. This results in a new generation of organisms that are more likely to survive to reproduce."
II. Further, I would posit that IF women were created, THEN we cannot know if it was for the specific purpose of men. (this will be further supported in my rebuttal against Pro's arguments).
IIa. If people were created, there are two distinct possibilities: there was a creator capable of thought, or there was not.
IIb. If there was a creator of capable thought, we have no currently known way of verifying the difference between a thought one has, and this creators
communication.
llc. If there is no way of verifying the difference mentioned in llb, then we have no way of verifying the purpose for which women were created.
IId. If there was a creator not capable of thought, we have no currently known way of verifying the purpose for which women were created.
Con. Therefore, we have no way of verifying the purpose for which women were created.
Some of the arguments, perhaps need justification, but this is a foundation to start from. I believe the two premises [IIa and IId] do not require justification. The biggest argument I can see against this would be that the conclusion is a non-sequitur, that there are indeed other ways of verifying the purpose of an object. One could argue that its function it largely serves today on earth could verify a creators thought, but I would argue against this.
Ex.
Let's imagine an inventor named Daniel. Daniel is the inventor of the modern calculator, Daniel wants to create a device that looks complicated, so - Daniel creates a device which has a wide variety of symbols and numbers on it, without any instruction on its operation. This device can be used for mathematical calculation, but the purpose Daniel created for it was wildly different.
The point of this example was to demonstrate that even if something has a straight-forward and obvious "use" or "function" that does not mean it was created for that purpose. It could simply be a byproduct of the actual purpose of the thing. In that case, the only way one could figure out the original purpose concretely would be to ask the creator. If we have no way of communicating with that creator which can concretely demonstrated to be the creator, then again, we cannot know.
Summary of the Contention:
I argue on two fronts:
1 - that people were not created, and instead gradually evolved from an apelike ancestor.
2 - that we cannot know the purpose of women
Rebuttal.
My opponent largely argues that female genitalia (assumed to mean "vagina") was designed to accommodate the male genitalia (assumed to mean "penis"). All with the purpose of receiving sperm from the male via sexual intercourse (or not, pro does not elaborate), which would then result in a fetus developing inside of the person, of which women are also designed for.
If Pro does not believe this to be a fair interpretation of their argument, please, let me know and specify which part was incorrect.
I. My largest objection, no sources were put forth to support any of the claims my opponent made. Furthermore, each claim is built on top of a claim. All made with a few assumptions: that women were designed, and that the fact that genitalia accommodating other genitalia means that one was made for another.
II. If I used my opponent's reasoning, why could I not argue that men were instead created for women? Afterall, women are the ones that do most of the work in this instance, the sperm provided is but a small fraction.
Perhaps I could come up with more objections, but my opponent has so few arguments of much substance, its hard to do so without pushing more of my personal interpretation on their arguments.
Conclusion.
I put forth a constructive argument against the resolution: that women, and people in general, were not created. And that we cannot know, if we were created, the purpose of our creation. Then, I argued against my opponent's constructive: that no sources were put forth, and that the logic Pro supplies could apply to a resolution that claims the opposite "The man was made for the woman".
Definitions
Sources
Round 3
It seems like you took what I stated and made it ultra complex with extra things about creation .
I said design, not creation. I said made or make as in design.
A design has to do with structure.
Is it untrue that the female genitalia is not structured to accommodate an unborn baby or the process to such a development?
If you say no, I would have to charge you with telling a lie.
Maybe you can understand my position somewhat better now. That's all the topic statement is saying in a nutshell.
Resolution: The woman is made for the man.
Roadmap:
- Assumptions
- Constructive
- Rebuttal
- Summary
Assumptions:
By creating the debate and declaring themselves the pro position, my opponent must demonstrate the resolution "the woman is made for the man" at a minimum they must establish that this resolution is true. I have previously established that within this resolution are two assumptions (Recall: Interpreting the Resolution):
- That "the woman" is indeed caused to exist, created.
- That "the woman" was caused to exist for "the man"
Both of these must be shown to be true before the burden of proof can be fulfilled for Pro. Furthermore, the definitions to support this specific wording of my resolutions are provided in round 2.
Constructive
Some might recall my multipronged approach from last round
- Asserting that as opposed to being created, People - including women - gradually developed via evolution.
- That we had no to verify the reason why a creator made women, thus making pro's BoP impossible.
As these have been largely ignored by pro, with no more than a single sentence addressed to things without any further elaboration or almost any reflection on my arguments, I do not see fit to do anything more than extend these arguments.
Rebuttal.
My opponent seemed to assert that my argument was wrong due to the use of "creation" as opposed to "designed" but in the context used previously, I would argue that the two have a clear connotation between one another. For voter consideration, the definition of designed [1]:
adjective. "made or done intentionally; intended; planned."
And the definition of creation [2]:
verb. "the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering."
Note not only that the definition of creation is much closer to "made" than design is (which is the actual term used in the resolution), but also that even ignoring that design and creation are not very different words. Designed does not substantially alter my argument, as both imply some sort of creator- conscious or unconscious, it doesn't really matter.
In fact, if we are to assume that the creator is unconscious, my argument only becomes stronger, as I no longer have to account for any sort of communication (which still could not be qualified, but not even having to consider it is a better position objectively).
A new argument seems to have been posited, or at least the implication of an argument: that the reproductive system in women (strawmanning here) are structured in a way that are conducive to children. Well, Pro seems to be implying that I would disagree with such a statement, and that i have at some point lied. I can't answer much about the specifics, as Pro has been extremely vague in their accusation.
But so long as we are discussing cis-women, I can say I agree that the reproductive tract of women are conducive to holding babies, in fact, I took this into account with one of my rebuttals. Using Pro's logic (as I argued in the previous round), why is it unreasonable to argue that men were made for women? Afterall, women do most of the heavy lifting, there are fewer logical leaps to make in that scenario then what Pro is positing.
Summary:
Pro has not addressed my arguments constructively almost at all, and has not sufficiently rebuked my rebuttals. Thus far, pro has not given a compelling reason to vote for them.
Round 4
" I can say I agree that the reproductive tract of women are conducive to holding babies, in fact, I took this into account with one of my rebuttals. "
That's good, I'm glad you agree with the truth from my position.
No don't rebut the fact. Also no need to skirt around something being made for something using the word "conducive ". The womb environment is conducive for prenatal development as it was made or designed to accommodate the baby or as some would say the fetus.
News flash, when you google search genitalia, it comes as the genitals which are the reproductive organs which are found in none other than the reproductive system.
Interchangeable here, so no straws to build with comrade.
Glad you agree once more. That's pretty much the size of the topic statement.
Resolution: The Woman is made for the man
Conclusion:
My opponent has not made a concrete constructive, not a single argument cited, or even logically justified. Each of my own arguments have been ignored, or addressed with less than of a sentence while ignoring most of the actual content.
I extend my constructive:
- People, including women, were not created but gradually developed
- We have no way to verify the actual reason women were made, if they were
I extend my rebuttal:
- If we were to use Pro's logic that being conducive to the other sex's genitalia, then men could be made for women the same way Pro claims women are made for men, there is no distinction.
Note:
During a sentence in my rebuttal I said "strawmanning here" in parenthesis, I meant to put "steelmanning here". Apologies for the confusion.
Vote Con.
It is not that old, I don't think that your thoughts would differ much by now counting from then.
Also.. Regardless of how old it is, it is still wrong.
You are responding to a comment that is over a year old.
Honestly, I can't even begin to point every ridiculous comments out, at this point it's best to just jump off a building as an expression to show how ridiculous this comment section is..
#16 is ridicule.. illogical... and any other words that should indicate how much this crap lacks logic and common sense.
How spreadable is thou cheeks?
Woah, I think I stepped into a gold mine...
Of course, God did make lilith first, never forget.
God is Satan, you already know my theory.
That said I don't believe in that god.
OMG, you are saying God is a women. That actually makes sense. God made Eve and then Adam to service Eve.
Oops, completely forgot about this lmfao
I know that unless you are the sharer type, it is insane to a man to imagine women genuinely can be fulfilled in polygamy.
As you said elsewhere they overall have higher capacity for bisexuality satisfaction and they experience insecurity and want to know the man likes them (but nor necessarily the best) whereas there are barely any men, beta cuck or not, that do not want their partner to tell them nobody compares to them in the way that she loves and admires them.
Women compete to get what they want, that is where they stop, whereas men compete to destroy competition and keep what they want as theirs. Men are not really ever wired for being sexually singular, they settle into it and women, unless modern hyperfeminists and/or pure lesbians, adore when their man or even another woman's man asserts himself to an intruder and says back off. It turns them on at times but definitely makes their hearts warm. It is because women do not perceive masculinity as inherently aggressive if they are in touch with their femininity, they find it entertaining and passionate, like the men are putting on a grand show that they enjoy watching and perhaps being a feminine part of.
Monogamy is all about force. Polygamic societies never will or have make monogamy ruled out, only the inverse is true, think.
Yes, they are built to protect and provide for the women, genius. That is the fundamental gender role, meaning men were built for women and not the inverse.
"When tribes go to war, who dies and takes the cuts and hits in order to stop the other dying? Men."
Because men are on average more muscular and stronger. An army of best-trained women against an army of best-trained men and the men will win. I don't think this is a reason.
"No. The vagina is designed first as the womb for the baby. It has a blatant exit design, not entry, it is not that different to the ass."
It does have a designed entry and exit purpose......we can just look to different types of animals to see how different vaginas develop differently (such as ducks and hyenas). A vagina is obviously designed to be able to get pregnant, (meaning in a very crude sense, to receive a penis).
"Women, however, are not clearly built to please men at all. 'More' of a woman is only pleasing to some, and when a woman is too womanly she's just a straight up ditzy and emotionally manipulative bimbo whereas a man that's severely masculine is stoic, reliable and keeps the woman respecting him by how he carries himself in the face of her manipulation and emotional swings."
-
Yeah, women are generally attracted to masculine qualities in men. Just like men find feminine qualities in women desirable. I personally don't consider someone who is "too womanly" being a "ditzy bimbo" that's simply called being an idiot.
-
"Men are more disposable because of not only the childrearing ability but because their core ROLE was to protect and sacrifice."
I wouldnt disagree with this assessment, i simply believe a middle ground between you and simone beauvouir is where the truth lays.
(polygamy was very normal back in the day, even polyamory for the woman wasn't as taboo but definitely a high quality man having several women was a norm even before Islam normalised it).
"Women enjoy high quality men to a degree that few men enjoy high quality women, this is because womanhood is not built around what men desire or admire, whereas manhood is built entirely around what women desire and respect."
very jordan peterson-esque as an argument. Can you prove polygamy wasn't the norm through forced marriages and rapes from the rich and powerful in the past? i get the sense the past was generally extremely socially and materially cohersive. Most women if possible are monogamous. Most women don't like sharing a man. Women want a man as much as men want women. There's a reason old ladies who have no kids have 10 cats. It seems evident to me men and women have a coperative relationship. Men cover the flaws of women and women men.
When tribes go to war, who dies and takes the cuts and hits in order to stop the other dying?
Men.
Men are more disposable because of not only the childrearing ability but because their core ROLE was to protect and sacrifice.
Men drove what ended up being the common traits in humans because they're stronger, often utilised rape but even consensually they called the shots of when and how often the women they had fucked them (polygamy was very normal back in the day, even polyamory for the woman wasn't as taboo but definitely a high quality man having several women was a norm even before Islam normalised it).
Women enjoy high quality men to a degree that few men enjoy high quality women, this is because womanhood is not built around what men desire or admire, whereas manhood is built entirely around what women desire and respect.
To make this clearer to you, there is a reason why with men generally speaking 'bigger and manlier' is more desirable for women.
The reason is that the 'more' a man is what he is, the generally more aroused and satisfied as woman will be at least in his short-term presence.
Women, however, are not clearly built to please men at all. 'More' of a woman is only pleasing to some, and when a woman is too womanly she's just a straight up ditzy and emotionally manipulative bimbo whereas a man that's severely masculine is stoic, reliable and keeps the woman respecting him by how he carries himself in the face of her manipulation and emotional swings.
You don't understand women maybe if you think that they're built to please men, the total opposite is true and it's your ego talking and bitterness at this fact.
There's a reason men have nipples and why a man undergoes more shifts from his boy form than a woman does from her girl form. Men are the later edition, the sex that evolved as things went one, women were the more baselines, default and core one.
"When is the first stage that an organism can have sexes? Was it a male or a female? Answering this question from a biological speculative angle could solve this discussion."
100% female.
Males can't reproduce life alone in any viable way, hermaphrodite species are primarily female, not male, in their body's functionality, otherwise they'd be unable to produce and nurture the offspring.
Surprisingly, I couldn't give a fuck.
No. The vagina is designed first as the womb for the baby. It has a blatant exit design, not entry, it is not that different to the ass.
The penis is designed around entering the vagina. You didn't even reply to a single thing I said at all.
When is the first stage that an organism can have sexes? Was it a male or a female? Answering this question from a biological speculative angle could solve this discussion.
Surprisingly, Simone de Beauvoir, a feminist philosopher and the wife of Jean Paul Sartre, one of, if not the, greatest philosophers of the twentieth century, strongly disagrees with you. She argues the woman's body is built to serve the species more than the man's. As she is the one with the ability to harbor and develop the child, she sacrifices her own bodily nutrients for the good of the species as a whole. On average, women are more physically incapable of doing things on their own as much as men. The female body is designed to have less independence and individuality.
-
"The vagina's design is to host and eject a baby, the penis' design is to please and enter a vagina. Men were built around women, not the other way at all. Men have nipples, do you know why that is?"
Is the vagina also not designed to please the penis? it obviously goes both ways.
Women enjoy nurturing men but they also don't mind crushing lame or 'creepy' men. They're role is less centred around men whereas men's role is more centred around women on a biological level.
The vagina's design is to host and eject a baby, the penis' design is to please and enter a vagina. Men were built around women, not the other way at all. Men have nipples, do you know why that is?
The total opposite of this is true. Men were made to protect and entertain women, think hard about it, men can't make men but if biology were tweaked, women could make women. Men are the additional sex/gender, not women.
He said “woman” and “man” and not “women” and “men” so Pro is giving a single representative for each sex. The lack of definite articles in front of singular nouns demonstrate implicity, which is what I assume Pro got here in the first place.
To be fair, you can accuse of him not proving what the topic is about if he just speaks generally and gives no examples at all.
hmm, a potential angle, but not a good one. Here, "the" is qualifying man and woman, to be more clear, it is denoting that the thing which is made for men is woman. And the "the" in front of man is simply qualifying the group of people for which woman is supposed to be made for.
To be clear to those loving out of quote stuff - this is me interpreting the resolution, i do not agree with that women are made for men. This should be obvious, but it apparently isn't.
Not really concerned with Pro getting a look at my interpretation.
Adding “the” makes the topic much more different. In any seriousness I wouldn’t be surprised if Pro refers it to Eve in respect to Adam. Is it a good topic? The hell it obviously is not!
Do you actually believe in the topics that you created?
Hmm, perhaps I'll do this as a little debate-vaycay - haven't been here in a while