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 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.
I don't know where you are in the real world so I can't prove it, however I can tell you the steps to proving it, which I would hope would be a better method of proving it to you than me just telling you.
First go find a man, any man will do. A a father, brother, male cousin, a male police officer, etc. Any man will do. Now be yourself, and watch him be himself. This should provide you an answer on who's better at being a man, you a female or, him a man.
But that was not what DrawFour said. All he said was that men are better at being men. Conversely, women are better at being women.
I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be a subtle joke
EDIt: I forgot to re-read his statement. He then said in all other things, it is up to the individual. So yeah, he is definitely not supporting male superiority in any form except for being men.
Well I showed you how you can prove it, if that's anything to go off of. You see I believe firmly in the proverb "teach a man to fish...yadda yadda"
I'd rather teach you to educate yourself, than to constantly feed you the answers. So if you'd be so kind as to re-read my arguments (or read them in the first place, knowing you) and then follow any advice given in said arguments, that'd be great.
Ooookay... now anything relating to the points I made? Since (if you read my arguments) you wouldn't find anything relating to value. Last chance if you're actually trying to have an argument with me, because this whole "type out a fully thought out argument, only to have it ignored" game you're playing has gotten old ages ago.
I did however say in no uncertain terms that men are not inherently superior to women, the point you seem to be foolishly disputing for, even though we are in agreement.
You were debating Dana and you included something like ' I want you to say "nothing shines likea moonlit penny" to prove that you are reading this '
I think that it was in the infamous ' rapist raped in prison.... karma? ' debate (it's a different title now, but you can tell that it's the original in the url.
I did learn my lesson, but the lesson was not that i'll roll over to debaters like that in general. The lesson was that I'll stay on track even if they try desperately to take us off track, and after my attempts at proving my point become futile for whatever reason, I'll respectfully opt out.
I mean I am here to debate, a little ignorance won't deter me.
The side I pick is irrelevant, if you read the things I'm saying. As far as the side I picked, I could have simply picked the 'wrong' side and not known it, making your dispute seem odd, especially considering the content of your dispute.
However, I am fully aware of the side I picked, and I picked it subjectively, and out of defiance, to debates of this nature, for if I had not picked this side, no chances are no one would have.
In conclusion, in future debates, consider my argument over the side I choose.
Men are more superior. We have been providers, leaders, and the better fit to make harsh immediate unattached from emotion decisions for the sake of the tribe. Women have been the back bone of the family, nurtures, and provided emotion to the mans logic.
I live in America so my opinions are based from that region.. American women are lazy. They are not a backbone to a family. They ate promiscuous with expectations of alimony .. They are not nurturing, they are twerking with the expectations of child support.. They are raised to be fake and there emotion can not be trusted... We have started a movement in America called feminism. Yet women have used there liberation for sexaul exploitation.
Men are not perfect in no regards. But we've known that right? "Men are dogs" "of course he cheated he's a man" "thinks with his dk" ect.. But the sneaky women.. The mature one. The loving women. The woman has the power. Man has became soft. Children are womenfied. If the women said tomorrow that they will not sleep with anyone with a blue shirt on then how many guys would where blue shirts tomorrow. Apply that thought to bullies, hip hop trash society, girls shaking there butts in videos with the lyrics degradding them...supporting those same lyrics that 10year olds grow up and idolize.
Think of a" normal"" couple. Let's say Joe and Lisa. Been together a few years then they get married and have kids. Joe works all the time trying to support the family. Lisa gets bored.. She thinks, due to feminism, and episodes of the real housewives that what she's doing is degrading. She nags that joe does not say the right thing or do the right thing. She grows resentment. She dresses provactively..(just wondering married women, why one would feel the need to ever go out in public with super cleavage and skirt and yoga pants.. Its a rhetorical question..explain it to Jesus) I'm not religious though.. Anyways joe is not perfect.. He might have an affair or get addicted gambling or flirt with the secretary.. The point is Lisa is the backbone. Its Lisa's job to find out what's wrong with joe... To help joe.. To be the only person on his side when everything around him is coming down..
She is the backbone of the family. Our families are crumbling in america. So although the word superior is harsh. I can not say that women are more superior then men. I believe in tough love and the shock value treatment.
Men are in no way superior to women. Men tend to be taller naturally, but women tend to mature much quicker. Men care about getting muscles, and women care about looking good. Men and women have their differences, but that makes it harder for people to choose which one is more superior. Men and women are superior about doing their own jobs, but men are in no way superior and women are in no way superior. Everyone is equal.
I believe that neither men nor women should be considered "superior", in the general term. It is too broad, really. I mean, that would mean that the man is higher in rank, status, and quality. If so, then why should men lower themselves so as to marry someone of lower rank, status, and quality? What, is it a sacrifice they are making to reproduce? Not only is the term "superior" inaccurate, but men and women are equal. Men might be stronger physically, but women have the skill of multitasking. For each advantage a man has, a woman also has one. If everybody shared the same traits, society will be at an imbalance.
Why are men considered superior? Because the odds were stacked in our favor for dominating the species from the very beginning of humanity. Although there exceptions to each of these rules, generally men tend to be bit bigger, stronger and more aggressive.
The biggest bully on the playground can dominate it, but that doesn't mean he's "better" than anyone else.
We took advantage of our ability to physically dominate women, and it is only very recently in the grand scheme of things that women have been able to find recourse, since we are increasingly moving towards a world where muscle mass doesn't matter all that much.
Right, the invisible flying bearded man in the sky is the arbitrator of all human rights, not our federal government. It was silly of me to think otherwise.
How can you claim that to be true? Life happens all the time without a creator. And what about things that are within the grey area between life and inanimate? Viruses, prions, those who are brain dead completely from birth, did God make those too?
Akulakhan is already being respectful, in spite of your refusal to provide evidence and constant reiteration of your initial claim (in place of reasoning). This isn't a matter of "agree" of "disagree", if you fail to present evidence then it is perfectly reasonable for Akulakhan to continue to waive lack of belief.
Disagreed. Believing in God does not mean that I am wrong any more than your lack of belief makes you wrong. Can you show me how life is possible without a living creator?
Nobody is superior to anyone else. Everyone is different, therefore they can't be judged by any one thing they do. Men are superior at what only men can do and women are superior at what only women can do. You can't say "men are better at sports than women". You haven't everyone on Earth (the 7 billion people as of 2014), so you can't say that. Everyone is superior, therefore nobody is.
