Is it Immoral for a woman to run for President of the United States? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is it Immoral for a woman to run for President of the United States?
in United States

By John_C_87John_C_87 143 Pts edited April 12

Morally one woman cannot be assigned as President of a United State within America without the sacrifice of morality. She is being sat before the world by others for the future of all men, while under an oath in basic principle to state the whole truth as questions relate to legal matters. A woman is already asked to do this with marriage representing only one man. The idea she should now speak on behalf of all men is immoral as it is beyond the practical experience of life. The woman’s commitment to whole truth is to create all woman as equal before law in whole truth. Meaning she will sit for the future of all woman in basic principle and in whole truth. A Title described by representation in Constitution as Presadera of a United State sets a example of basic principle that can be easily understood and followed by all woman  young and old alike.

PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987AlofRI



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • Ludicrous....
    Zombieguy1987AlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 158 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Are you, maybe being serious?

    By expressing such an individualized opinion, in the very day and age, of the "Me To Movement?"

    No, it's not immoral, it would be equal, and fair, if a lady could become the POTUS of the United States.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1653 Pts
    You mentioned that, in your view, the idea that a woman should speak for all men is immoral. But how is it qualitatively different from the idea that a man should speak for all women? The only way you can resolve this "immorality" is by electing two presidents, one being a man and representing all men, and another being a woman and representing all women. I will skip elaboration on the issues such a system would have.

    Or we can make the assumption that, perhaps, gender does not mean much when it comes to one's ability to represent a nation, and both the practical and the moral issues your have raised will be resolved by default.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987AlexOlandOppolzer
  • It is immoral for you even to ask that question .
    AlofRI
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @TKDB ;

    Are you, maybe being serious?  

    Yes completely. It is immoral for a woman to be a President.

    By expressing such an individualized opinion, in the very day and age, of the "Me To Movement?

    It is a whole truth not opinion, it is also simply addressed by independence. The creation of a united state setting all woman as equal in a united state. It is something that has been worked on for the preservation of Constitutional understanding of equality for all woman placed under oath of truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth. This in relationship to basic principle, Executive Office of the United States has been a burden of truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth long before the “ Me To Movement.” The timing is not relevant to a political movement as my oath to confidentiality was structure upon an attack to be made against a very public united state.

    Is it moral for a woman lie by instruction? The idea of truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth has been a repreparation uniting all woman before. Presadera is a basic principle setting a united state with all woman just  as President is has set a united state with all men.

    No, it's not immoral, it would be equal, and fair, if a lady could become the POTUS of the United States

    Of course, it is immoral for a woman to be voted to a position to represent all men in an order of any legislation. Let alone a Constitutional legislation. On the statement of whole truth P for President and P for Presadera is really leaving POTUS untouched. only the whole truth of name has been changed to protect the innocent. 


    AlofRI
  • @MayCaesar ;

    You mentioned that, in your view, the idea that a woman should speak for all men is immoral.

    Of course, it is immoral for a woman or any person to be voted by a public to a political position to represent all people in an order of principles in any guidance of legislation holding trust in legal whole truth. Let alone a Nation that may also embrace a form of Constitutional legislation. The whole truth of view on display to be seen is that a woman is the same as all woman by a basic principle of her gender.

    how is it qualitatively different from the idea that a man should speak for all women?

    I’m not quite sure where this idea a man speaks for all woman comes from? A President and First lady are displayed to witnesses.  All men are created equal by their creator sounds like a basic principle to me. This does mean all woman can be created equal well.

    we can make the assumption that, perhaps, gender does not mean much when it comes to one's ability to represent a nation

    Represent a nation is not representing a basic principle in truth, whole truth and nothing but truth. Or is it?

    another being a woman and representing all women. I will skip elaboration on the issues such a system would have.

    A person, or the people both share an equal united state before the Court and legislation. They share the state to be call to serve as witness, held as part of an observed group in basic principle before an Oath of truth, whole truth, with nothing but truth.



    AlofRI
  • @Plaffelvohfen  
     

    Could you explain why a woman representing all woman before a concept resting on basic principle is lunacy? Discrimination? Can you tell why directly lying, or insisting to have others tell or teaching them lying on officially matter is not immoral? There is truth in any understanding of the interpretation to discrimination, prejudice which then is also immoral, why discrimination is immoral does not affect why lying is immoral in any way. It cannot be said that one type condition of morality set is the only kind that exists, therefor the discovery, the introduction of truth is crazy how?

    When interpreting the command of a public to appear before truth, does not mean a whole truth itself no longer becomes relevant. A vote is a official public demand for whole truth.

    It is to be clear, Plaffeivohfen it is not Ludicrous. All Woman without prejudice can be placed in a single state as Presadera forming a United State. This is truth, this is whole truth, and finally this is nothing but truth. Do you see the axiom in that phrase?




  • It is immoral for you even to ask that question .

    @billbatard ;

    I’m not asking a question. First, there is a description to a united state which has been placed before the public, myself included, that is immoral not just in the America’s but in the world as well. Second, in basic principle a woman who whishes to be a President and sit for the future of all men. Morally simply sounds like she is trying to take advantage of a whole truth that all men are created equal by their creator. Setting an interpretation on top trying to become the creator of destiny in the future of all men.

    Third, all woman are created equal by the formation of a united state, this one united state is basic, a Title Presadera. Again, it is not a question asking if woman are a Presadera. It is a statement that tells everyone in the world that a woman, who can be said in whole truth by all woman is one of them is in the Executive Office, of these United state, in whole truth Presadera describes by constitution meaning a whole truth, when placed under legal Oath.

    God being a general numerical question seeking solution by axiom within the preservation of United States Constitution.


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1653 Pts
    @John_C_87

    I honestly do not understand your argument at all. It seems to imply that there is a qualitative difference between a female and a male presidential candidate. Could you briefly summarise that difference and explain how it makes one gender running for president immoral, while another gender running for president moral?

    Thanks.
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesar

    In whole truth there is difference. This basic difference is then told by translation as it holds a cost and assigned value to honesty.

    In whole truth under representation of order there is a qualitive difference between a woman set under oath to answer for all woman. As there is a qualitive difference between all men set under oath to answer for all men.

    In basic principle they, man and woman are not equal. At some level when directed by whole truth all men are created equal by their creator, this is the whole truth, inside a statement of truth and justice. Nothing but truth. While at some level all woman are created equal by their creator. Even when a creator may not be the same or equal to men and woman.

    A woman will be Presadera this is a whole truth, and nothing but truth, by basic principle. The understanding given publicly in a united state is telling us a lie is immoral.

  • AlofRIAlofRI 208 Pts
    I'd really like to say something here, but, I wouldn't want to make it more confusing. I'll just say I've met a lot of honest, intelligent women, and I thank their creator. I can't wait to call one Mrs. President. I just hope she does a better job than some of the men have done when "placed under legal oath". 
  • AlofRI said:
    I'd really like to say something here, but, I wouldn't want to make it more confusing. I'll just say I've met a lot of honest, intelligent women, and I thank their creator. I can't wait to call one Mrs. President. I just hope she does a better job than some of the men have done when "placed under legal oath". 

    To simplify the principle of President and Presadera. A monarchy like England and others is set with a representation of man and woman together. King and Queen they are bound by Marriage. In a United State as legal Precedent.

    In America that to can happen, so precautions had been taken in establishing regulations in basic principle to make it much harder. Here a woman can be Presadera as she will sit for the future of all woman by basic principle of truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth. To limit confusion by details the idea is to make it ;harder for a marriage to be a controlling factor in the powers of the Executive office.

    Did this explanation help you in understanding any? What you want may not be really what you are asking for.


  • its only immoral if she is ugly
  • The word "morality" is defined as a belief, not a fact. This nation is not governed by a single set of beliefs but a system with multiple beliefs, checks and balances. It is your belief that a woman being president would be immoral and can be accepted. My morality differs in this situation and can be accepted also. There is no valid argument here. The question you posed was relevant, but only in the sense of asking someone's personal beliefs. The Constitution itself was not written by people who had the same moral beliefs. Thank goodness. @John_C_87
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @BrandyKnight ;

    The word "morality" is defined as a belief, not a fact. This nation is not governed by a single set of beliefs but a system with multiple beliefs, checks and balances. It is your belief that a woman being president would be immoral and can be accepted. My morality differs in this situation and can be accepted also. There is no valid argument here. The question you posed was relevant, but only in the sense of asking someone's personal beliefs. The Constitution itself was not written by people who had the same moral beliefs. Thank goodness. @John_C_87

    So, you say telling a lie is moral then? A woman is a female in basic principle, in the judicial process where are people are placed under oath to tell the truth, to tell the whole truth, so that nothing but truth can be established. from just opinion. A woman would be Presadera or some title not yet made by public by woman as a declaration of independence to an established Monarchy. As it was England with a King and Queen America was once part of. A United State is what is created an applied with basic principle and legal precedent to establish United States Constitution. A Presadera as executive officer is a moral identification for it is truth that a woman who sits for the future of all woman as united State is in fact a legal purpose as a sworn witness. @BrandyKnight ;


  • Again, morality is subjective not factual. 
  •  @BrandyKnight ;
    Again, morality is subjective not factual. 

    Morality is subjective just as fact is subjective. Precedent, a court of law asks for both truth, and whole truth to be used to construct nothing but truth as united state. Continue please. Create all woman as equal. Meaning in truth and whole truth this sets the condition of fact as woman are waiting to be created equal before all woman, Presadera.  All men as created equal by assigning them as a President in a united state. 



  • We can have a female president, just as long as it isn't Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Michelle Obama, or any other buffoons unfit for presidency. 
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • John_C_87John_C_87 143 Pts

    You can…………I can’t, a woman president is not a legal united state. Even though you are not knowledgeable enough, even though the public may not carry about the crime taking place, even if confess moral sin to god for forgiveness, the united state the describes a woman as Executive officer without threat of perjury is not President. The common defense in preservation to United states Constitution would be along the lines of Presadera of the United states. For at minimal then many women would share equal a united state in constitutional principle which creates all woman as equal by use of whole truth.

  • John_C_87John_C_87 143 Pts

    I consider this a realistic state of the union.  

    The basic goal in shared authority for any united state is sounder when constructed using basic truth to shape a much larger whole truth. It cannot be seen clearly in whole truth how all woman should believe that all men would discriminate against a woman’s natural abilities in basic principle alone as united state. Presadera was not a choice offered it was an action required after the opportunity was given.

    It was given at great cost and self-value woman stand righteous in this light of their belief so that no woman shall have died in darkness.


  • TKDBTKDB 158 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Hypothetically speaking if any of the below ladies were to run and campaign to become the POTUS, watch, the kinds of attention, that they might individually garner?

    Condoleezza Rice

    Michelle Obama

    Oprah Winfrey

    Meghan McCain

    Harris Faulkner

    Martha MacCallum

    Dagen McDowell

    Julie Banderas

    Catherine Herridge

    Dana Perino

    And a host of other ladies as well? 

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1653 Pts
    @TKDB

    I would totally vote for Condoleezza Rice. Easily the best Secretary of State in a couple of decades, a woman of integrity and uncanny intelligence.

    Unfortunately, she has a flaw that would set her back significantly in the race: she does not have much charisma. She lacks that fire that propels millions to cheer for her out loud. Next to the screamers such as Donald or Bernie, her emotional visage would not look very impressive, and that is a large factor in any election.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 143 Pts
    @TKDB ;Hypothetically speaking if any of the below ladies were to run and campaign to become the POTUS, watch, the kinds of attention, that they might individually garner? I see no relief there, in whole truth any of the woman you state would be running for the attempt to present publicly the ability they have always had to show others independently. I apologize TKDB as I believe myself to be no longer biased but find myself unable to be relived on a principle held on authority of command.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 143 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    @TKDB

    I would totally vote for Condoleezza Rice. Easily the best Secretary of State in a couple of decades, a woman of integrity and uncanny intelligence.

    Unfortunately, she has a flaw that would set her back significantly in the race: she does not have much charisma. She lacks that fire that propels millions to cheer for her out loud. Next to the screamers such as Donald or Bernie, her emotional visage would not look very impressive, and that is a large factor in any election.

    @MayCaesar ;

    There was a goal of equality in many woman's lifetime without and basic principle to unite all woman as equal. The statue of justice holds two items. 1. A sword. 2. A scale. Sadly may people learn fare to late the scale holds blood in a united state with sword.


  • TKDBTKDB 158 Pts
    @John_C_87

    The Voters overall in the United States, get to vote on whom they believe would represent the public as a whole, versus varied individual opinions.

    (Hypothetically speaking if any of the below ladies were to run and campaign to become the POTUS, watch, the kinds of attention, that they might individually garner?)

    "I see no relief there, in whole truth any of the woman you state would be running for the attempt to present publicly the ability they have always had to show others independently. I apologize TKDB as I believe myself to be no longer biased but find myself unable to be relived on a principle held on authority of command."
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 206 Pts
    I really don't see what morality has got to do with a woman being President?
    "never show someone your entire hand too soon" - Famous Proverb/Idiom.

  • John_C_87John_C_87 143 Pts
    @ZeusAres42 ;
    I really don't see what morality has got to do with a woman being President?  In basic idea there are two points of morality. Point one is a woman described as President is a lie.The second point is a Madam President would associate the Executive office with a state of brothel. Also a question of better moral judgment. The position held by the Political spot light is one that every young woman may one day aspire to work towards, and there is a morality in understanding the translation of laws to united state in the construction of justice by basic principles. 
  • John_C_87John_C_87 143 Pts
    @TKDB ;
    The Voters overall in the United States, get to vote on whom they believe would represent the public as a whole, versus varied individual opinions.

    The voter has a choice to preserve constitution and look at both the legal precedent and a basic principle of the Executive office in united state with President or Presadera. The assumption of why a voter casts a vote is to them a private liberty. What matters is their vote is their truth. The idea you keep placing as an opinion is nothing more than a basic truth. In fact it is as basic as truth can be told as a united state. One way to rephrase what has been said honestly, a man can only give a mans opinion and be expected to tell the truth. While a woman can only give a woman's opinion while being expected to tell the truth. speculation must be used outside that basic truth this is the creation of a United state.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | 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

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch