Women’s suffrage was a mistake
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
Women got the right to vote in America on August 18, 1920. [1] That same year alcohol became illegal, giving rise to organized crime. [2] This was just the beginning of the damage caused to society by allowing women to vote. They just aren’t suited to make policy decisions generally speaking.
“The theory of risk compensation suggests people adjust their behavior according to perceived risk. Where people perceive greater risk they act more cautiously. When they feel more protected they act less careful.”[4]
Death rates from cirrhosis and alcoholism, alcoholic psychosis hospital admissions, and drunkenness arrests all declined steeply during the latter years of the 1910s, when both the cultural and the legal climate were increasingly inhospitable to drink, and in the early years after National Prohibition went into effect.
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.
Pro forfeited
@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.
This is an interesting topic, something this site currently lacks.
Personally, I think Pro is on the right side, but convincing people through debate of something politically incorrect, is quite difficult (debates are quasi popularity contests), especially when the truth is rooted in underlying values not currently valued.
Lulz. "Women should not vote because the result would be democracy."
Should be an interesting debate though. Hope you get someone to loan you a laptop or something, Wylted.
I thought I had 72 hours on the transhumance debate, just got off of work and saw less than 15 minutes left. You can take an extra round
Socialism is objectively correct. I dare you to debate me on it.
Don't forget to reply to the Transhumanism debate. You don't have much time left.
I can’t take that seriously from a socialist LOl.
Your political ideology is retarded. You should be restricted from saying dumb shit on the internet.
My political ideology was formed prior to becoming a Christian, but yes I believe the ends justify the means. So it may be inherently unfair to prevent women from voting but if the result is a better economic system with less poverty and overall suffering, than their vote should be restricted.
You are a massive dick head who deserves to be shot directly in the face. You think women should not have equal standing in society just because they tend to disagree with you about your ignorant bible thumping redneck politics? You sir, are an ignoramus, and a sexist banjo strumming wanker doodle.
Damn cellphone. Nobody likes reading walls of texts. I need to use a real computer.
I did not figure this out until just now but I think I’ll start off with using hypergamy as a premise somehow. Not sure as a premise for what but an artist let’s his work speak.
I’m literally stuck on a Greyhound for the next 12 hours so I have nothing better to do
Definitely willing to look for holes and give you the route I would likely look to go in the rebuttal round. We are so different. I don’t even know my arguments until somebody accepts my debate. I just have a general feel for the arguments and see where that takes me
If you want ill send you the construct I have for that UBC debate. I feel I constructed a solid AF case 🤔, def want some independent perspective on that
Thanks, I can actually dedicate time to research and argue this one as well since I am out of town without family at the moment, so I’ll put up a fight. I thought about accepting yours and arguing devil’s advocate but I thought this would be more fun
I saw a post where you mentioned being geographia.
This should be an excellent debate. Two talented debaters going at it. Im looking forward to reading this! 👏
Wait, do you know who I am? I'm Geographia. No matter.
You have improved a to. Since your first debate. This will be challenging. I have slowly gotten worse on the other hand, but I want to be top of this leaderboard so we’ll see what happens
Correct please do
However, to be clear, you are arguing that more harm than good came from the 19th amendment?
I'll take this senpai