Debate Info

Yeah, what's up with that? No, that can't be true...
Debate Score:67
Total Votes:77
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Yeah, what's up with that? (21)
 No, that can't be true... (17)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(36001) pic

Women are more equal than men, i.e. they have more rights!

Think about it:

Your paycheck, should you get a divorce, does not belong to you.  If she doesn't work, you have to support her a$$.

Your children, should you get a divorce, do not belong to you.  If mom drops them off at the babysitter's house, try to pick up your kids without mom's verbal consent to the sitter.

Your half of the fetus, should you get a woman pregnant, does not belong to you.  If she wants to abort, it's not your call.

Your sperm, should you die, does not belong to you.  --->

Yeah, what's up with that?

Side Score: 31

No, that can't be true...

Side Score: 36

This is sad but true. Women have made great strides once they got organized (read women's lib). Men need to organize and do the same in order to get some justice and fairness. I'm tired of being forced to make concessions. I'm almost willing to vote for Sharia law ;)

| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
4 points

Yes, I completely and totally agree. Now I'm not trying to be a complete ass or anything, but I feel like the link I am referring to is one of the main irritants of mine towards women's rights.

Supporting Evidence: Abortion: What About a Man's Choice? (
| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
4 points

The new treatment of women isn't feminism, and original civil rights crusaders might take issue with our implementation. What we have is Victim Feminism- just because women are often victimized, the system equates them with victimhood. I was just reading, and one of the anecdotes reminded me of this. A couple was having sex, and their 6-year old son called the police because his mother was "crying." Despite the couple's explanations, the man was arrested for domestic abuse.

Ehh, whatever. FML is all made up shit anyway :P But it is illustrative of the problem we face. The effects of Victim Feminism are more destructive than those of pre-feminism, in that they're institutionalized and it's taboo to resist them. Note that I mean the effects of VF, not feminism itself.

Check out my link: there's a Masculist movement, if you're interested.

Supporting Evidence: Masculism (
| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?

How about Victim Masculist? Do they have a movement like that? Maybe it's called the Emascualte movement. ;)

| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
1 point

It's called feminazism, and i've been talking about it for quite some time.

They wanna ban "Fat Princess" for God's sake.

| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
Awen27(540) Disputed
1 point

What's fat princess? o.O


| Side: No, that can't be true...
2 points

Feminism has gone to an all-to-powerful level. Women can do just about anything they want, and it is politically incorrect to stop them. Men, lets form masculinism. MEN OF THE WORLD, UNITE, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOOSE BUT YOUR WOMEN!

| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
1 point

Yup. This is basically affirmative action at it's prime. I think society is kind of making up for all the time women had no rights by giving them extra rights now. I don't mind equality, but I'd rather not have less rights than women just because they're women. It was unfair the other way back in the 19th century, so we slowly fixed it (with their coaxing) and now the tables are turning the other way.

| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
1 point

It's out of control. I wont name names, but a person I worked with regularly was a total femi-nazi, she wrote regular pieces on how horrible it is to be a woman, she firmly firmly believed in her head that,

every single woman ever in the history of mankind has been repeatedly raped by every man ever. That we are the spawn of satan, and if she had ultimate power, would torture and kill us all.

you think I'm exagerating? Trust me I'm not. She felt a guy accidently looking at her titties, completely unconsciously, ignoring that we're genetically and irrisistably drawn to look at titties through millions of years of evolution, was him raping her.

Now luckily I never had to see this person in person, only through online, otherwise I would doubtless be in jail by now for repeatedly raping her,

what the hell do you do with a person like that? She'll never be happy, and she does everything to spread her misery to men.

That's an extreme example, but the victim mentality is out of control, and it's flowed over to the court system.

Now though, I would disagree with a couple things.

1. It should ultimately be the woman's choice whether to go through with a pregnancy. If a guy doesn't like the decision, tough luck, find a girl who wants a kid then.

2. All things equal, a mother should have the first option of raising the child up to a certain age. While I'm for equality both ways, it does no good to ignore nature in the name of fairness, and women generally are better at raising small needy things.

That said though, it should be on an individual basis, and a crazy crack head mother, should not get to raise the child over a hardworking drugfree dude, but the way it is now, the crackhead would probably get the kid, and spend the child payments on crack.

And the divorce law is retarded. Without kids, no one should owe anyone anything. Really, they have a clause for "standard of living they've become accustomed to." Really? Are you effing kidding me? She (or in some rare cases he, like that Fetterline or whatever) just needs to become "accustomed" to not living by those standards anymore, and get an effing job.

| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
1 point

I agree.

That would be like doing a crappy job at work, getting fired, and expecting the company to still pay you because you were used to that standard of living.

Just ridiculous.

Supporting Evidence: My Blog on Women (
| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
1 point

In regards to the mother spending the child tax benefits on "crack", perhaps not always drugs, but I've seen it done with alcohol, shoes, clothes, jewellery, cigarettes. Completely unacceptable. Men and women are obviously equal- they both abuse money. Women just get more of it.

It's just absolutely ridiculous. The med school I intend on going to has a class profile of 70% females. This class profile has been ongoing since 2005 when it started. You can't tell me that these "female candidates" are better qualified than the male candidates. Absolutely not.

| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
jtrinh4life(1) Disputed
0 points

TO: (IamdavidH)

There is one part to your debate that i completely disagree with. Your so wrong when you say it should be completely up to the women if they want to go through with a pregnancy. When people have sex they know all the consequences from the get go... I.E. condoms, birth control, spermicidal lubricants and etc. If the mother of my child was going to kill him or her before birth I could not see myself ever letting go of it and probably be completely enraged and saddened. I mean wouldn't you have some sort of hard time knowing you were going to be a father but couldn't because the mom wanted to murder your child and you had no say in it...

| Side: No, that can't be true...
iamdavidh(4851) Disputed
0 points



It's not a kid till the third trimester.

Before then she's allowed to abort the non-child cluster of cells. And she should be allowed to abort the non-child cluster of cells.

| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
1 point

Yes. It's true. Obviously it differs in every situation.

Some marriages end because the man messed up. Some marriages end because the woman messed up and others end because they both messed up and don't want to do anything about it.

Apart from the fact that they shouldn't marry in the first place I think MOST marriages end because the woman's expectations are too high and they are not met. Unless they're being abused, 'held-down', cheated on etc. they shouldn't really divorce. NOT because the sex isn't great, not enough money, she has her needs, it wasn't as she thought it was going to be etc.

However... this is only from what I've seen and heard so don't take it all as fact... I don't know many people who've divorced (only their parents) and probably won't know many.

| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
1 point

They have greater protection under the law. For example, an adult woman who statutorily rapes a teenage boy and gets pregnant as a result can sue him for child support, even if he doesn't want the child and even though he is a rape victim.

Girls in the same situation can choose an abortion and cannot be sued for child support unless she chooses to give birth and allow the rapist to raise the child. She has total control while the boy has zero control.

| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
1 point

women get everything in a divorce; they act like they need to not work and for her ex to give her free money, like they should never have to go through hard times.

| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?

Look, I'm a guy and I treat men and women both as equals however, women do have more legal rights and implied rights. An example of a legal right would be, women's car insurance is cheaper then mens car insurance. An example of an implied right would be, it's customary for a guy to hold the door for a woman but a woman not to hold a door for a guy. It's customary for the man to buy the engagement ring. You're supposed to not hit a woman, even if she's hitting you. I watch this fake show called operation repo. Well the girl "Lyndah" is the repo mans daughter. Well when she repos a car, it looks like she is stealing the car because she just opens the door of the car and turns it on and tries to drive away without showing the owner repo papers. Well the male owners tend to try and pull her out of the car but her dad always comes in a tackles them from behind saying "you don't touch a woman like that" even though it looked like she was taking the car. If a woman hits me and it begins to hurt, I'm going to punch her in self defense.

| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
1 point

I don't care what gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or weapons he/she has, if I'm being attacked then my first priority is MY and EVERYONE ELSE'S safety, my second-to-last priority is making sure I don't use too much force so that the liberal media doesn't get its hands on the court case, and my LAST priority is the safety of the attacker

| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
0 points

Although it's all true, look at it this way:

If she knew she wasn't ready to be a mother and you wouldn't let her abort the child, are you going to be home all the time taking care of the baby since you wanted it so bad? Probably not. Which is why women get the decision because they KNOW they'll be the one stuck taking care of the child 24/7.

I'm sure the reason you pay her money if you divorce is pretty obvious: she has an extra mouth to feed and body to clothe, and unless she suddenly has a job better than yours so she can feed 2 people, PLUS put the child in daycare (which is expensive), then it's a bitch. I'm not saying the men should be paying it all, but at least half of what it would require to take care of the child on a monthly basis, not the ex-wife. Ex-wives that are bitching and crying for your money is effin ridiculous; they really need to grow up and take responsibilities, but so do you.

Women getting mandatory custody of the children is also for a reason; they know what they're doing. If two parents aren't living together and one decides to up and take the child for a day, it's easy for things to get way out of hand since the ex-spouses are barely communicating. And ex-spouses, possibly mostly men, have a habit of using the children to get back at the wives; so they will take them and put them in the middle of an ex-spousal feud. Not very healthy, but ridiculously common.

| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
DaddySays(15) Disputed
2 points

Wow, that was based in no part on fact.

If you ask anyone, it is women who typically use the child against the man.

You do not hear men saying things like "you will never see your child again", or just talking trash to the kids about the father. Or using the child to get what they want.

For example: "if you dont do this then you dont care about your child"

| Side: No, that can't be true...
1 point

the mother can usually get away with parent alienation, while the father can't get away with completing his kids' database with the full story. the mother usually takes enough money away in a divorce situation so that she has enough money for a lawsuit but the father doesn't, and also usually happens to be the parent with "primary-residential custody". You're right though, I have no statistics to support my argument.

| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
1 point

Nichole... You hit a raw nerve.

Women need to be able to meet their basic needs. This means that they should be able to pay for their living expenses (clothing, car (gas, insurance, maintenance), home (rent mortgage), electricity, water, and food). In other words, they should pay for the things that they would normally have to pay if there were no kids involved. Dads could pay whatever is left over, food for the kids, clothing for the kids, dentist, optometrist, doctor bills etc. (all of the child's needs if necessary).

But that's not how it works. Dads fork over the cash and mom decides how to spend it, like getting an iPod for "the child" even though she's the one that uses the damn thing and doesn't let the child take it out of the house.

I find it extremely offensive for anyone to suggest that all Dads are dead beats and that they use children as a weapon against mom. If Dads want to spend more time with the children then people say, "Oh, he's just trying to get out of paying child support." But if mom wants more time with the children then no one says, "Oh, she's just trying to get more child support." It is most heinous kind of bias that I have ever been forced to live through.

It is because of this that I oppose you (I normally favor people even if they think differently than me) and it is for this reason also that you don't get a smiley (but didn't down vote you either so it's not so bad).

| Side: No, that can't be true...
1 point

Joe, I didn't say all Dad's are deadbeats. I wasn't even really implying that. But emotionally, I know how screwed up two people that were in a relationship can be and the kids end up being a scapegoat. It could easily be the moms as much as the dads.

Also, I know some mom's getting child support use the money selfishly; but I was totally not talking about that. I agree the Fathers should be able to pay everything you listed if they can/will, but the law should come up with a more definite way to be sure the money is used usefully for the child and not the way mothers are spending the money. My mom did that crap herself, unfortunately.

Last, I was talking for the sake of argument because in reality we all know this debate is already confirmed in the heading.

Super duper last, I deserve your smiley. I'm way sad.

| Side: No, that can't be true...
Spoonerism(826) Disputed
1 point

Dads could pay whatever is left over, food for the kids, clothing for the kids, dentist, optometrist, doctor bills etc. (all of the child's needs if necessary).

Women need to be able to meet their basic needs. This means that they should be able to pay for their living expenses (clothing, car (gas, insurance, maintenance), home (rent mortgage), electricity, water, and food). In other words, they should pay for the things that they would normally have to pay if there were no kids involved.

Aren't food, water, (dare I say, electricity), and shelter children's needs, too?

| Side: Yeah, what's up with that?
6 points

That's plain bollocks.

You get a divorce, there are assessments of the parties' finances and applicable property-division laws, and then there's a division. If one partner eschewed financial opportunities to support the other by maintaining the home or by turning down opportunities so that the other partner could take an opportunity, then yeah, the partner in the better earning position may end up paying some support. If that partner is the husband rather than the wife, that speaks more to conventional gender norms in the workplace and domestic sphere that disadvantage women than it does suggest any "deprivation" of the "rights" of men.

A number of states have specifically enacted laws that remove the presumption that a mother rather than a father should automatically be awarded custody. Joint custody agreements are quite common. More common is a legal order that says "joint custody" and thus minimizes the father's child support payments, accompanied by a "weekend dad" who has chosen to actually take responsibility of the kids for about 20% of the time, rather than the 50% that his support payment order assumes to be true.

You also keep looking for new forums to make this fetus-possession argument. Men have a choice about where to put their sperm. If they choose to put it in somebody else's womb, that choice may have consequences. They do not get a choice about what another adult does or does not do with her body. Again, if you donate blood with the understanding that it is going to go into somebody else's body, you can't decide six months later that you want it back and start cutting people open. If you put your sperm in somebody else's body and decide six months later that you want it back, you don't get to cut that person open either. Like your donated blood, your sperm is gone - it has been assimilated into somebody else's body. No backsies.

Finally, as far as the incidents of collecting sperm from dead guys, it's highly relevant that in the example you cited 1) NOBODY made any objections and 2) the evidence presented indicated to the court that the dead guy would have wanted that. There's actually quite a lot of law regarding artificial insemination and it varies somewhat from state-to-state, but almost all require at least two specific acts of affirmative consent, at the time of fertilization and freezing and/or at the time of implantation. If the affirmative consent ain't there, the frozen embryo usually doesn't get implanted, regardless of whether the woman wants it. Exceptions have been rare; the only one that comes to mind was a case where the woman would not have been able to have genetic children unless she used the frozen embryos, and the guy had changed his mind and didn't want her to have them, but didn't want them destroyed either. And even in this one limited incident, I can't recall whether the Court actually came out on the side of the woman or whether the parties reached an agreement.

| Side: No, that can't be true...
3 points

Feminism was engineered by the Rockefellers to control American society.

Feminism Was Created To Destabalize Society - Aaron Russo Interview

| Side: Feminism created by Rockefellers
2 points

I THINK THAT THE REAson women have 2 holes is so you cn hold them like a 6 pack of beer

| Side: No, that can't be true...
Banshee(288) Disputed
5 points

And I think the reason (some) men have two holes is so they can eat with one while simultaneously both sh*tting and talking out of the other.

| Side: No, that can't be true...

Actually, the reason babies have soft spots on their heads is so that you can hold them like a 6 pack of beer. ;)

| Side: No, that can't be true...
0 points

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn are wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrsssssssssssssssssssssssssttttttttttttttttttttttttt

| Side: No, that can't be true...

About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Creative Commons
©2015 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.