Women’s suffrage was a mistake
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 6 votes and 20 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Pro delivered on arguments because women's suffrage is obviously a step towards an egalitarian society. Without it, the world would've ruled by oligarchs or men, and in my perspective, it is a fair and just decision. When my country allowed women to vote in 1935, we had two female presidents. If women stayed in the house for all of eternity and letting men rule, then it would result in an unfair and unbalanced society. It has been existed ever since, and Pro's arguments proved otherwise.
This will look like I didn't read in depth but I did.
Pro almost won the debate even with the forfeits because of how little Con tried. Here is why Pro lost, however:
Pro made quite a strong case for women being inferior at understanding consequences and hence being poor judges of risk (I am not saying I agree but actually the latter is more true than the first, females are better at understanding consequences but worse at accurately converting it into a quantitative risk element because of how their brains on average are allocated grey vs white matter and how it is wired in general vs men). I am not using my opinion to vote though, of course not I am among the world's best debate voters..
What I notice is that there's extremely little in Pro's case that explains why the RIGHT TO vote was the mistake and not why the ABILITY OF SOCIETY TO ALTER THEIR MEDIA AND WAYS OF INFORMING to cater to the female brain. Then I notice that Con doesn't attack any of this but instead CONCEDES ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT I TELL YOU STRAIGHT: IT IS NOT ACCURATE THAT SINGLE MOTHERS ARE OBJECTIVELY WORSE WTF... The thing is, though, this debate is like this for me:
Pro proves (even though it's a lie) that women are worse at comprehending risk and other elements of policy that are key to economics AND to social policy (and foreign too but I don't notice him really dig into that). Where he goes wrong is in the backtracking, he never makes the source/root the right to vote for women but the ability of society to get female voters correctly informed. Con literally concedes all the key points to Pro (LITERALLY ALL) but says Liberalism is somehow better after conceding all the points Pro made against it...
In fact Both of them are so wrong I didn't quite know how to calculate this... I will say Con won as Pro forfeited and failed to make the root 'mistake' be the right of women to vote.
@Earth had a more convincing manner and conduct, which was doubly helped by his/her convincing argument. @Wylted's argument did not make much sense.
Con explains pretty clearly that liberal policies have often empirically been good for the US and that Pro, at best, is cherrypicking examples of when liberal policies hurt the US. Pro then forfeits and fails to respond to any of Con's arguments in that respect, leaving them standing. Straightforward vote for Con; happy to expand on RFD if requested.