CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your own opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Well I guess so. lol. I just think saving the children is the most important thing and then we branch off from there. I'd much rather give up my seat on a life raft to a child (actually 2 because they're small ;) hehe) than to an 85 year old woman who is going to die of old age within the next year or so.
1) Children, and perhaps also pregnant women (this latter is a little problematic, as on the one hand there's an impulse to save the "baby" which means saving the woman, but on the other hand she might be a safety risk depending on the specifics of her condition and of the crisis at hand)
2) Primary caregivers of children
3) People with "oh-crap-we're-adrift-in-a-lifeboat-in-the-mid-Atlantic" survival skills (tailored to meet the appropriate crisis), because a bunch of lifeboats full of people who have no idea how to survive in lifeboats is probably not much use
4) Adults with no special medical needs which would compromise their safety or the safety of others (seems a bit heartless, and there may well be more elderly people with special needs than not, but "special medical needs" probably also translates into "unlikely to survive a life-and-death crisis situation anyway"), AND with no proven history of violence (sorry, but if you're a convicted murderer, you go last because I don't trust you)
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.
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.
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... :|
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.
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.
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.
It's bullshit propoganda to say that gender equality is important, and that women should be treated with respect? All I did was call you out on criticizing gender equality. Yes, people do take feminism too seriously sometimes, and treat acts of kindness as gender inequality, but you were acting like it is so terrible that people want women to be treated as equals, and allowed to pursue whatever kind of life they want. And if you feel the need to make personal attacks, I suggest you back off, because this is a place for intelligent discussion, not bitching at women for not being your bitch.
The woman's liberation movement was bullshit propaganda to double the workforce. You are fighting imaginary shadows that don't exist except in your mind. Hey you decided to dispute me lady, so you back off I was here first. Don't pick a fight, and then expect not to be called on your bullshit. You must accept that people will respond to the disputes which you started. To not accept this would be hypocritical.
"The woman's liberation movement was bullshit propaganda to double the workforce. You are fighting imaginary shadows that don't exist except in your mind."
Considering the facts that women weren't payed equally for equal work and weren't allowed to get their tubes tied without their husbands permission, I don't think the former oppression of women is in my head, thank you. I don't think women are oppressed today to a great degree, but they were in the past. I'm not saying I agree with all aspects of the feminist movement, but I certainly agree with some.
I disputed your argument, then you were rude and condescending to me. I didn't mean stop debating, just to stop being rude.
You say that the women's liberation movement was propaganda to double the work-force. I say that they had legitimate reasons to fight. Is there anything twisted up about that? Have I misunderstood what you said?
I do admit that I probably overreacted, but my main point has simply been the gender equality has been a REAL issue, not a made-up one, and that it's not silly or wrong for people to fight for it.
No. You don't deserve respect because you lie about what I said, and then proceed to criticize me on that basis, and you failed to address the points in my original argument. You are just serving your own sense of self importance by defending equality of women, which does not address my original argument, but only feeds your own vanity.
I asked you if I misunderstood what you said, and you didn't even try to clarify, all you did was say "show respect". And I DID address your argument, which was that the women's lib movement was bullshit, and I disagreed with that. I admitted that I overreacted and such, but what you said DID demonstrate sexist attitudes. Again, if I misrepresented what you said, then clarify it, rather than just telling me over and over that I'm a liar.
By the way, you say that I don't deserve respect, but what on earth have you done to deserve it? You're rude to EVERYONE on this site. Every opportunity you get you say how all these people you don't even know are complete morons. What part of that is someone who has shown to deserve MY respect?
This is a waste of my time. Bugger off if you just want to fight, and I will do the same. Actually, I will regardless. I have so much better things to do with my time, and so do you.
Maybe you are used to changing the subject or trying to put words in someone else' mouth and then giving them flack over it, and getting away with it. But not with me. I called you out for what you are. A shifting liar who is only interested in inflating their own sense of self importance and someone undeserving of respect. I disrespect you. Next time, just stick to the point and don't lie.
