Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register

Best Content of All Time

  • Let's Talk Critically About Sexism

    Headlining our debate on Sexism in the United States is the Oxford Dictionary's definition of what "Sexism" means and this will set the tone for the debate to follow:

    Sexism: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

    Followed by Merriam Webster:

    Sexism: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially :  discrimination against women

    In my honest opinion I think the meaning of the word is an indication of where this is going.  While I admit openly that there have been and currently are disparities in equality between Men and Women in the United States...I don't think the inequalities are biased heavily or more heavily against Women.  There's a quiet, hushed side of this equation that has remained unnoticed and shunned for the majority of the History of the U.S.

    My point is this:
    1. Men have historically been held accountable, responsible, liable and reprehensible more heavily than Women.
    2. Men are on the receiving side of more discrimination, prejudicial treatment, stereotyping and bias than Women are.
    3. The benefits of being a Man are far outweighed by the benefits of being a Woman in our Country.

    My supporting evidence is as follows:

    1. The Legal System:
        a. Being a Woman in the U.S. means that you are in a supremely better situation when it comes to criminal defense.  Studies confirm that Women are treated absurdly better than Men in Criminal Court with Men receiving 63% longer sentences on average than Women for the exact same crimes.  Women are also twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted than Men.  The Gender gap is SIX TIMES larger than the racial disparity in Criminal Court.  Not to mention that domestic violence by Women against Men is virtually an invisible crime.
        b. From 1927 to 2012 it was not legally possible to be raped as a Man. Reporting non-consensual intercourse with a Woman as a Man to Legal Authorities was met with threats of punishment for false reporting.  Men in the U.S. are historically required to pay child support EVEN WHEN THEY ARE THE VICTIM OF A JUDICIALLY RULED STATUTORY RAPE.
        c. Gender Disparity is undeniable in the Judicial System with Family Courts being the poster child for Bias against Fathers.  With such a high rate of divorce in the U.S. it's no wonder that the Family Court System is overflowing with custody proceedings and although studies show that only 4% of all custody matters in Family Court are contested by the Father, of those 4% (Roughly 96,400 Fathers/yr) a vast majority of the time the Courts award custody to the Mother.
        d. In the U.S. it is a legal requirement that ALL Males at the age of 18 register for selective service.  Failure to do so is a Felony, is actively punishable under law, will prevent you from voting, owning property or getting a job in the U.S.  There is no such requirement for Women nor has there ever been.

    2. The Education System:
        a. Being a Male in school means that you are more likely to drop out.  The Education System does not tolerate the predisposition of the Male instinct, boys are judged with undue harshness and with prejudice. 
        b. In the view that has prevailed in American education over the past decade, boys are resented, both as the unfairly privileged sex and as obstacles on the path to gender justice for girls.  However, a review of the facts shows boys, not girls, on the weak side of an education gender gap. The typical boy is a year and a half behind the typical girl in reading and writing; he is less committed to school and less likely to go to college.
        c. There are four times the amount of Scholarships specifically designed for Women only as opposed to Scholarships designed only for Men.
        d. In the U.S., 60 Women will attend college for every 40 Men.

    3. The Economy:
        a. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the unemployment rate for Women is 20% lower than for Men.  Instead of addressing the issue, the government actually gives businesses owned by Women special preferences in obtaining Government contracts and offers tax-payer backed small business loans for Women only.
        b. In the workplace, you will find mentor programs, specialized training and fast-track options that are exclusively for Women while no such programs exist for Men.  This is mainly due to the presumption that Men have an upper hand in the economy while none of the evidence supports it.
        c. Men are pressured into studying "high paying/high return" majors such as engineering, finance, CS etc. because they are expected to support a family and earn enough to do so.
    4. The Social World:
    Lastly, the word "Coward".  This is a prime example of Sexism in the United States.  Have you ever heard a Woman referred to as a "Coward"?  You most likely never will.  The term is exclusively used to describe a Man who lacks the courage to do something he should do. 

    Picture this:

    A Mother is driving her Mini-van down the highway with her child inside when she loses control after one of her tires runs flat.  The Mini-van flips over uncontrollably and comes to a stop upside-down.  The vehicle catches fire and the Mother, fearing for her life, crawls out and cannot get near the vehicle without setting herself aflame.  After several attempts she backs away from the vehicle due the the sheer heat and her child dies in the fire.  Is she a "Coward"?  Of course not.  But if it were the Child's Father...well that's a different story.  Say the Father tried but after realizing he would be fatally burned decided to run away from the vehicle, leaving his child inside....yep...he's a Coward.  This is Sexist Culture.  "Women and Children first".

  • De Blasio: It’s ‘Distressing’ ICE Is Arresting ‘Law-Abiding’ Illegal Immigrants

    I agree with the assessment that a person who is in the country illegal has broken the law.  The question is who is responsible for enforcing immigration laws and if we as a society choose to task police with this responsibility what are the impact to law enforcement of that decision.  How are we going to pay to keep illegals in local jails until they are transferred to ICE?   Are communities of immigrants going to distance themselves even more from police? What are we doing with the children of immigrants that are deported?  How are we funding that operation?
    I can understand the argument of illegal workers and their effect on the economy.  My concern is tasking police with immigration duties and massive deportations are all good head liners, but I have not seen a comprehensive treatment of this problem that accounts for the impact on affected communities and how we are dealing with american children once their parents are deported.
    I think there should be a path to becoming a legal citizens for those who can take advantage of it.  It should include paying higher taxes for a period of time to fund the hidden costs of dealing with illegal immigration.
  • Should members switch to debateisland?

    The opinions and polls sections of DDO are broken, nobody can use them, so yeah. People can only use forums and debates currently. DDO is basically a giant bug.

    In the debates section, I've seen some pretty disgusting/terrible ("Black rape victims who complain should be forced to work in the sex industry"), and stupid ("morality= survival truth" and basically everything by vi_Spex, "is it gay for a guy to wear girl clothes"). The debates section is extremely low quality.

    I also rarely see any debates getting voted on. Infact the majority of debates get abandoned before the voting period. The ones that get into the voting period? They usually don't get votes and when they do it's usually by the debators friends who they had waiting to vote for them, or they just get removed instantly because "I don't like how you did this little little little little little thing blah blah blah" and alot of the times, people won't even try to win debates by arguing and doing research but instead by getting their friends to vote for them as already said, or reporting opposing votes. Chances are, if they're reported, whiteflame will look for a reason to remove it if he disagrees with it. Not if they're obviously biased votes or whatever, but if he disagrees with them, RIP Vote.

    I used to be friends with someone who organized vote bombings all the time. Also, the most viewed debate on the entire site is a troll debate about a tv show character. 

    Most of the activity on the site comes from the forums section. Forums that aren't just spam and games such as Philosophy lack activity. In more active forums that aren't just spam and games, it's usually the same exact people in them.

    And you know about what I said about whiteflame? In general, the moderation is corrupt. Head moderator airmax will ban people for very small things while allowing active trolls to roam freely. is dying, and now many top members are abandoning their accounts. It went from actual discussion to a bunch of trolls and spammers. 

    However there is still one thing good about The account deactivation screen. 

  • Scarborough tells Colbert: 'I'm not going to be a Republican anymore'

    No, I believe that the show requested for him to make the switch. Networks like these want an all democratic or most democratic cast, especially when it comes to hosts.
  • Physical books are better than e-reader or tablet books


    You can do that with ereaders: Not only that but you won't have issues like I've had before lending books out where it is returned in poor condition or (as happened once) with writing inside! You can even do it remotely so the person doesn't have to physically be with you, though they do need an e reader of their own.

    I held on to physical books for quite a while, but eventually ran into a few problems which converted me:

    1) There is only so much space in my house for books, I've basically hit that limit and I don't want to get rid of any to make room for new ones.

    2) I'm environmentally conscious so I cycle to work. Cycling 50 kilometres with a book in my bag not only made the journey harder (more weight = tougher cycle) but also ran the risk of damaging the books. A kindle is lighter than a book and in a carrying case it doesn't get damaged.

    3) Ebooks books are cheaper. The reason I first got into them early this year because a book I wanted was 99p on Kindle and £9.99 for a hard copy. They're also delivered instantaneously.

    4) Some books are free. Copyright is not eternal but runs out after a few decades, so if you want to read an older book you can often do so for free with an e reader. I just downloaded Clausewitz's On War volume 1 the other day and read Pride and Prejudice a few months back this way.
  • Opinion | Is Putin Getting What He Wanted With Trump? New York Times

    Putin is certainly getting what he wanted, but not from Trump.  Ironically, he's getting it from the Democrats.  All Putin wanted was to sow the seeds of dissension, and paralyze our society and our government.  The whole notion that Putin actually plotted to get Trump elected is ludicrous.  To start with, Putin would have had to have had a better idea of what the electorate was going to do than EVERY pollster in the US.  Up until about 2 days before the election EVERY pollster reporting that the election was going to be a blowout for Hillary.  And what would they have been getting in Trump?  Trump said he wanted to try to work with Putin, but by all accounts, Trump was a political maverick unconstrained by conventional political wisdom.  Hillary, on the other hand, was quite predictable.  She had extensive ties to Russia and Putin both as Secretary of State and through the Clinton Foundation.  Putin already knew he could work with Hillary.
  • Game of Thrones is similar to live sports


  • To what extent should historical events hold a significant impact on social interactions?


    First and foremost, I hope I am not interfering with anything. 

    With that being said, let's get down to what you said. 

    "The nature of the issue is very much philosophical, not legal. The situation as you've presented it in the OP is not about whether people have any kind of legal claim in a court of law, but their thoughts and feelings and whether they hold a grudge. In that arena the person who makes the claim needs to back it up as is standard in a debate."


    Yes, in the original post I made the distinction of social interactions, then someone brought up the need for compensation in this case, of which I stated briefly that it would be getting compensation from the wrong people as wealth can't be passed down, for 200 years (I should mention that this was an estimate, you are taking it too literally). At which point you didn't challenge the social aspect of my post, you decided to go after the economic aspects. Which has more to do with law, than philosophy, so you can't use philosophical criteria to debate for something philosophy has no control over. It's like trying to use a pickaxe to pick apples, it doesn't work philosophical debate structures aren't meant for economic problems.

    You'll also note this argument does not stem from me making my own definitive claim to the contrary, but rather asking you to back up yours. Eg I did not say "You are wrong, wealth can be passed on over 200 years" I asked "why not" in relation to your claim. I do not need to support claims that I have never made, for obvious reasons. Now I have made claims while challenging those points and if you dispute those then I'm of course obligated to back them up, but I think you've generally accepted them as valid and then tried to incorporate them into your point of view. I'll go over the last few posts tonight when I'm in front of a computer, but feel free to flag any of my points you feel need evidencing as you disagree with their premise.


    Ok come on dude, you've got to be kidding me, certain words have certain weights, connotations, double meanings, jests, and gestures. I mean "Why not?" Has a challenging and disagreeable tone to it, especially when applying it to the context of an argument. Plus, you confirm this by showing disagreement in later stages of our argument, so show evidence. So you made a claim, a political statement of disagreement with that gesture or phrase. 

    "In regards to your data, the issue is it doesn't prove your point. Even if your individual anecdotes were correct (haven't looked at them yet because no point in doing so if there's underlying issues in your logic) do they show your premise is correct? Is "wealth cannot be passed down over 200 years" the only explanation for them even if they are valid? No, because "wealth is always passed down" Vs "wealth is never passed down" is a false dichotomy. It ignores other options like "sometimes wealth is passed down, sometimes it isn't". That's an option which also explains your data but would refute your claim. You have not proven your point because your conclusion is still just a possibility."


    Data, statistics, experiments, they don't mean anything without interpretation. Statistics are essentially trial and error.

    For example - If I survey 10 people and they all tell me their favorite color is red, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that all people like red until I come across that one person that likes green or blue. In that same way, I looked at three people with slave owning ancestry, and reasonably concluded: " These people had rich slave owning ancestry, but despite that, they still lived a middle-class life, with no portion of that money to speak of." (They were also shocked that their ancestors had owned slaves, to get an inheritance, I'm pretty sure you need to know where it comes from.) 3 out of 3 don't have slave money, that's 100 %. Therefore as far as my statistics go 100% of the people surveyed didn't receive slave money inheritance, the point was proven. You need to provide a 4th person that did, just one, and I'll concede the point.  (Provided it's solid, of course)

    "Your point is wealth can never be passed down across 200 years. Hence you need to prove wealth can never be passed down over 200 years, not just that it didn't happen to be passed down in a few individual instances."

    Don't you think you are misconstruing the argument just a little bit? Context matters here I said that in the case of slavery, that wealth can't be passed down. And even then, I'm pretty sure that unless you are the royal family or the (Illuminati) Rothchilds (I'm kidding), then you are not getting a 200 hundred-year-old check

  • The earth is flat

    Erfisflat said:

  • Are people born gay?

    Gays develop their sexuality over time and based on their environment.

Debate Anything on

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch