CreateDebate


Debate Info

18
49
Yes, I would. No, I would not.
Debate Score:67
Arguments:38
Total Votes:80
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, I would. (13)
 
 No, I would not. (25)

Debate Creator

Argento(512) pic



"Women and children first!"

If you were in a ship that was sinking and someone shouted the above sentence, would you be a gent and oblidge?

In today's post feminist society, would men give way to women as they do for children?

Yes, I would.

Side Score: 18
VS.

No, I would not.

Side Score: 49
1 point

Although the question asks if all men would, and to this I say no, I very likely would. For a man not to do so would be rude and ungentlemanly.

Side: Yes, I would.
Argento(512) Disputed
0 points

Wait, so, if a man doesn't regard a woman's sex as a good enough reason to give her priority over his life, then he is rude and ungentlemanly?

Can't you see the contradiction in there?

Side: No, I would not.
Pineapple(1449) Disputed
1 point

No, I don't. Could you please explain what you mean by that?

Side: Yes, I would.
1 point

Even as a woman, I would let other women go ahead of me.

Why? Get them off the ship before hysteria sets in. Women, and some men, are more prone to hysteria, and the closer to the begining of an evacuation the hysteria proned individuals are out of the situation, the better for the group.

It's not an exact science. For example a man traveling with a child can go first, or if it were a plane instead, evacuation would be conducted based on seating.

But as a general rule, it is best to let women and children go first.

Side: Yes, I would.
-1 points

Children didn't live a long life. Sinnce women take care of them the women should be first.

Side: Yes, I would.
3 points

Yes, and no. In a sinking-ship type situation, "children first" I would definetely still support; both because I think it's our job as adults to protect and nurture the children of our society, and because they have not yet had an opportunity for much life. But "women first" is not a fair blanket rule on either of its original rationales, which would be that 1) women are frail and cowardly and in need of protection, and 2) the mother is always the parent responsible for taking care of children. The first reason is widely understood to be bollocks and the second is no longer 100% true in our society. I would agree that nursing mothers should "go first" too, because their infants are dependent on them. The child's primary caregiver gets on next, and that will probably often - but not always - be the mother. And then everybody else.

Side: No, I would not.
MKIced(2511) Disputed
1 point

So all of a sudden it's vital that a random single woman needs to be saved because women take care of children? I think children should be saved first and should go with their parent(s), including the father!

Side: No, I would not.
1 point

But if you give both parents the "go first" privilege, now you've just placed a value on saving people with children before saving people without children. I'm not sure that's fair either. At least one parent, I agree - a child needs a caregiver. But childless people go last? That doesn't seem like the right balance of interests either.

Side: No, I would not.
5 points

If we truly are equal, why should the first group be determined by gender? Children maybe, but women? Please, we're past those old evil days of sexism.

Side: No, I would not.

A skinny woman, maybe, but a fat woman would just be tacking up 2 spaces and that's just not right ;)

Side: No, I would not.
Banshee(288) Disputed
0 points

Since women are, as an average, smaller and lighter-weight than men are, by your logic of "most-people-fewest-pounds", we pretty much should let the children and women go first.

Side: Yes, I would.

eOK, the skinny ones first, but the fatties stay behind ;)

Side: Yes, I would.
4 points

Letting all the women go and basically signing your life away is somewhat heroic, but it's idiotic and not a form of modern chivalry at all. Children have a chance at life still, so yes save them first. Let their parents go with them too, but are you seriously saying that I, an 18 year old male, must let an 80 year old woman on a rowboat before me? I'm all for helping others, but I don't think I'd feel all that great about saving somebody who is going to die of old age soon anyway! And I mean this in the least selfish way possible... :|

Side: No, I would not.
2 points

Those days are over. The feminists and do-gooders ruined all that. There is no more room for chivalry, you will be sued for sexual harassment. And your children will be kidnapped by social services.

Side: No, I would not.
Awen27(541) Disputed
0 points

There's nothing wrong with people fighting for gender equality, or women wanting to be treated with respect.

Side: Yes, I would.
dmch(6) Disputed
3 points

Yes, there is nothing wrong with fighting for equality. But since women nowadays are equal, they should be treated as such, in any situation. For people with equal rights in the same situation, only their abilities determine where they are going to end up. Men are naturally stronger, and I bet you very few of women will be able to put up much resistance if all the guys decide "fuck these emancipated bitches we're taking these life boats for ourselves". And considering how many special rights women get in business and workplace nowadays, I certainly won't hesitate to save my own life first.

Side: No, I would not.
nagtroll(275) Disputed
2 points

that's bullshit propaganda invented to get women to enter the workforce. How big of you to stand up for women and children, it must make you feel so important.

Side: self important
2 points

Women WITH children first, yeah sure. As someone already said, the primary care-giver to the child should go with him/her. But no, not all women should be put in the lifeboat ahead of all men.

Side: No, I would not.
2 points

I am a feminist. So, no. Children first, yes, but not women.

Side: No, I would not.
1 point

For your information, the Feminist movement was manufactured by the Rockefellers to control American society.

Feminism Was Created To Destabalize Society - Aaron Russo Interview
Side: feminist movement Rockefeller
1 point

Children first but men and women are equal, remember? That's what the feminists keep saying but I haven't heard them argue against this p articular concept.

Side: No, I would not.