EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
1245

That only women should be allowed to vote

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
0 points
JurisprudenceJurisprudence (PRO)
My thanks to my opponent for agreeing to this debate.

So to the proposition... clearly it is the case that sometimes in secret topics we are asked to defend a position, or indeed promote one, that perhaps goes against the grain of ones natural position on the matter. So it is the case here... almost universally the freedom for all to vote, both men and women, is recognised. I would never argue outright that men should be removed of the right to vote, however I will play devils advocate here and propose why, for a period of time, a women only vote could hold benefits that are not immediately obvious.

I would ask that anyone judging does so not on the proposal directly (like me you assuredly wouldn't vote in favour of such a proposition), but on the merits of both arguments and whether myself or my opponent has done the better job in presenting the case. Such are the parameters of a fair and worthwhile debate; otherwise I may as well concede 

Sadly I have left this debate too close to the deadline, so I will have to make do with using this first round to outline how I will present my argument moving into the next round.

Firstly I will highlight the current state of affairs; who currently votes, what the voting trends are and how a monopoly on voting and elections is both bad for democracy and subsequent policy. I will argue that a women only vote for a period of time would have positive impacts for all.
I will then present a summary of how women vote in direct comparison to men, showing that women are usually more peace loving, more harmonious and more egalitarian.
Finally, I will argue that a period of women only voting would redress the balance of inequality that has blighted our history as human beings since the very first election in Ancient Greece.

I look forward to this debate and I apologise to my opponent for this perfunctory opening.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-04-07 14:23:36
| Speak Round
BifurcationsBifurcations (CON)
I thank my opponent for opening the debate.

For this round I will simply ask some questions for clarification and outline my plan in a similar way to my opponent then we can begin fairly in the nest round.

So my questions of clarification are as follows:

How long is the period of time that woman are allowed to vote for?

Will this be governed by a certain number of election cycles?

Why is it that the period of time you choose will be effective at achieving the aims you want?

Are you setting this as a worldwide policy and debate or a UK one (I assume you are UK based from you're picture)?

Are there other marginalised group that this policy would include/ not include?

Do you think war is necessary?

How are different parties likely to react to this policy and what will that mean for the female voters?

The last two were just questions rather than questions of clarification.

So to present my argumentation (subject to adjustment later). 

I will look at the direct harms of this policy and show their long term outcomes to politics and why this is bad for female voters.
I will also look at the necessity of balanced opinions in voting.
Then I will show how this creates greater long term inequality for women particularly in party campaigns and positions of power.

I look forward to the rest of the debate.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-04-07 19:02:00
| Speak Round
JurisprudenceJurisprudence (PRO)
My thanks to Bifurcations for her magnanimity in helping to frame the debate after my time constraints from the first round. Perhaps my opponent being a fellow strong-willed woman is something I can appeal to as the argument develops!

 As a side note, I clicked on 'related debates' and saw that this debate has occurred twice before; neither got past the first round and neither included more than a sentence. I would say that already, in this debate between two women, we have exemplified not only that there is a very real need for more female involvement in politics, but that when women are engaged, a positive and useful dialogue develops more often than not.

In response to my opponents questions, I would like to propose that we frame the debate in the following way:

- The period of 'women only' voting would extend to one full cycle of democratic elections, principally focussed on a full term of 4-5 years. This would include a full Presidential vote in the US, or a full parliamentary one in other democracies in the E.U or Canada etc. It would also include at least one, perhaps two, local elections (where applicable), Mayoral elections (where appl...) and council elections, as well as Congressional/Senate nominations, caucuses exclude.. again wherever this applies. Essentially women would have the casting vote for a full term of office by the head of state, plus any smaller elections within that term.

-There would be no further exclusion based on race or other profile. There are merits to be gained from discussing the marginalisation of ethnic minority groups, LGBT voters etc, but both for clarity and to stick to the proposition in the main, I will not argue on that basis here.

- Relating to my opponents question regarding my position on war and that of the reception from the main political parties, I will answer them in due course.

If my opponent agrees with the parameters I have laid out there, I will post all my main arguments in R3, leaving the final round for conclusions and any rebuttals. 

I look forward to the rest of the debate. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-04-08 15:42:38
| Speak Round
BifurcationsBifurcations (CON)
Not quite sure what my opponent had wanted me to do in this round so I'll just wait for the next round and the debate can start.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-04-09 11:57:20
| Speak Round
BifurcationsBifurcations (CON)
It is unfortunate that my opponent has had time issues with this debate.

For this round I will lay out the analysis for the arguments I set out in the first round.


1. necessity of balanced opinions in voting
A government is elected to protect the interests off all people equally. This means that policies are created which affect different groups of people in society. In order for their to be an accountable decision on whether a policy is effective and fair from the point of view of the people who would be impacted then they must be included in the democratic process. The only time that the the population of a country has the ability to voice this and affect the outcome of policies is during elections. This also extends to policies that might have to happen but could not have been discussed during the campaign. This means that when you cut out a significant proportion of the population they cannot vote in their own interests and other groups do not have the necessary understanding of their lived experiences to know whether or not changes to policies directly affecting the silenced groups will make their situation better or worse. This means that the best policy might not be enacted.

2. direct harms of this policy
Allowing women control for one election cycle will not make up for the years in which they could not vote but it will make men very angry with women. They feel that thy are not being allowed representation and that their interests are not being protected by the Government. The long term effect of this is that, while for the cycle politicians might pander to the female vote, afterwards they will ignore female voters and focus on male voters because the women have had their chance. The reason this happens is because the majority of MPs are male. This would mean that women are more likely ignored in politics in the future.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-04-11 11:49:48
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
BifurcationsBifurcations
@Jurisprudence it's ok things happen :) look forward to future debates
Posted 2016-04-12 14:22:41
JurisprudenceJurisprudence
@bifurcations, good morning. I'm so sorry this debate has got away from me. Factors outside of my control have prevented me from doing the subject justice. I am conceding this debate as I don't have time to post now; i'm only online now to apologise for wasting your time. I hope you won't be put off debating with me in future.
Posted 2016-04-12 05:59:55
BifurcationsBifurcations
@Jurisprudence are you just wanting me to accept you're mech in this round?
Posted 2016-04-08 21:56:32
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 4 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 day
  • Time to vote: 3 days
  • Time to prepare: 1 hour
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29