• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is the stronger sex (assuming there are only 2 sexes)

Which is the stronger sex, men or women?

  • Men

    Votes: 18 69.2%

  • Women

    Votes: 8 30.8%
  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .
No no ,the ones coming from Mars
 
lefty louie said:
Who is the stronger sex? Sorry weirdos, no 3rd option in this poll.
Click to expand...

False choice.

If the OP is referring to physical strength, then yes, overall, men are stronger than women. But the bell curves of the two sexes' strengths definitely overlap.

If the OP is referring to mental strength, then it is my understanding that neither of the two sexes has an edge. Women are just as capable of deep, critical thinking as men are.

Emotional strength, I am not yet qualified to say. Women tend to be more so on average, but this could be a product of socialization.

And yes, the OP does imply only two sexes. Are there more than two? I do not know. I am open to clear evidence either way. I am not open to fundamentalist views that dig in their heels without a shred of evidence to back them up.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I used the common definition and placed the adjective physical in front of it. Making the type of strength I was talking about very specific
Click to expand...

The OP did NOT define strength. So each poster is free to decide that on their own. You have your own- fine with me.
 
haymarket said:
The OP did NOT define strength.
Click to expand...
strengths has a common definition. And adding the adjective physical Narrows that definition that is what I did.

If you have a problem with the Op don't gripe at me about it

So each poster is free to decide that on their own. You have your own- fine with me.
Click to expand...
that is incorrect I used the common definition of strength and further narrowed it buy specifically talking about physical strength.

You need to have a better reading comprehension
 
CLAX1911 said:
strengths has a common definition. And adding the adjective physical Narrows that definition that is what I did.

If you have a problem with the Op don't gripe at me about it

that is incorrect I used the common definition of strength and further narrowed it buy specifically talking about physical strength.

You need to have a better reading comprehension
Click to expand...

I do not get why you are so obsessed with replying to me about this when you are using one interpretation of what strength means and I am using a different one.

You want to see it your way for you - fine with me. I have no problem with that. But what personal problem of your own prevents you from accepting that my standard of what strength constitutes is different than yours?
 
Phys251 said:
False choice.


And yes, the OP does imply only two sexes. Are there more than two? I do not know. I am open to clear evidence either way. I am not open to fundamentalist views that dig in their heels without a shred of evidence to back them up.
Click to expand...

False choice? How so?

I "Imply" there are only 2 sexes? No I outright state there are only 2 sexes. Evidence seems pretty clear there are only 2 sexes, unless of course you self identify as a snowflake.

I'm pretty sure there is substantial evidence that shows the above as fact, but you feel free to start your own thread and disprove that fact.
 
haymarket said:
I do not get why you are so obsessed with replying to me about this
Click to expand...
You replied to me. Also I'm only replying to your replies. That's what a forum like this as about.

when you are using one interpretation of what strength means and I am using a different one.
Click to expand...
No I'm using the common definition of physical strength. You are stupidly arguing that not all strength is physical. When I started specifically that I was talking about physical strength.

You want to see it your way for you - fine with me. I have no problem with that. But what personal problem of your own prevents you from accepting that my standard of what strength constitutes is different than yours?
Click to expand...
There is a common definition. You are seeking to use an esoteric definition.
 
Phys251 said:
False choice.

And yes, the OP does imply only two sexes. Are there more than two? I do not know. I am open to clear evidence either way. I am not open to fundamentalist views that dig in their heels without a shred of evidence to back them up.
Click to expand...
There are only two sexes within humans. Sexes exist to procreate.

There isn't a need fur anything else other than a male and a female to procreate.
 
CLAX1911 said:
There are only two sexes within humans. Sexes exist to procreate.

There isn't a need fur anything else other than a male and a female to procreate.
Click to expand...

That is the exact mindset that has been used against gays. No different.
 
lefty louie said:
False choice? How so?

I "Imply" there are only 2 sexes? No I outright state there are only 2 sexes. Evidence seems pretty clear there are only 2 sexes, unless of course you self identify as a snowflake.

I'm pretty sure there is substantial evidence that shows the above as fact, but you feel free to start your own thread and disprove that fact.
Click to expand...

That is a very barbed response to my declaration of openness to clear evidence either way. Do you have anything to present other than your own opinion?
 
Phys251 said:
That is a very barbed response to my declaration of openness to clear evidence either way. Do you have anything to present other than your own opinion?
Click to expand...

Right after you reply to the questions I've asked you to expand on. Not sure what was "barbed", but however you want to take it.
 
Phys251 said:
That is a very barbed response to my declaration of openness to clear evidence either way. Do you have anything to present other than your own opinion?
Click to expand...

There is Absolutly no evidence of a third sex and plenty evidence of there being two sexes.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Its a biological fact. You only need two sexes to procreate.

How has this been used against gay people?
Click to expand...

You said, and I quote:

CLAX1911 said:
There are only two sexes within humans. Sexes exist to procreate.

There isn't a need fur anything else other than a male and a female to procreate.
Click to expand...

What you're doing is equating sex and procreation. An elementary knowledge of biology shows this not to be the case.
 
Phys251 said:
You said, and I quote:



What you're doing is equating sex and procreation. An elementary knowledge of biology shows this not to be the case.
Click to expand...

So how do humans procreate? Is there ever an instance that involves something more than a male and a female?

A elementary knowledge of biology suggests you need two individuals of the opposite sex to procreate.

You didn't explain how it was used against gay people.
 
Last edited:
lefty louie said:
Who is the stronger sex? Sorry weirdos, no 3rd option in this poll.
Click to expand...

Yes there is a 3rd option. Neither we are equal.

Because we evolved differently each sex with different strengths and weaknesses. This is the reason we have survived. You cannot have large powerful hands that are agile, accurate, and nimble. I struggle to pick a needle up off a table.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Yes there is a 3rd option. Neither we are equal.

Because we evolved differently each sex with different strengths and weaknesses. This is the reason we have survived. You cannot have large powerful hands that are agile, accurate, and nimble. I struggle to pick a needle up off a table.
Click to expand...
I fail to see your third option.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So how do humans procreate? Is there ever an instance that involves something more than a male and a female?

A elementary knowledge of biology suggests you need two individuals of the opposite sex to procreate.

You didn't explain how it was used against gay people.
Click to expand...

There you go again.

You seem to be unwilling to understand that sex is not just about procreation. Do you really need this explained to you?
 
CLAX1911 said:
You replied to me. Also I'm only replying to your replies. That's what a forum like this as about.

No I'm using the common definition of physical strength. You are stupidly arguing that not all strength is physical. When I started specifically that I was talking about physical strength.


There is a common definition. You are seeking to use an esoteric definition.
Click to expand...

When I debated in college for two years, we were instructed that one of the very first things you must do in a debate is to define the key terms. If you fail to do that, there is no debate on the issue, it is all about terms and then there is no true clash of views on the actual topic. That is what we are doing here. You have your definition - I have mine - and whats more, that was the intent of the person starting this thread in the first place.

I can respect your viewpoint. Why cannot you respect the view of others who simply see it differently than you do? Why do you have to pretend that doing so is something "stupid" and resort to that sort of nonsense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom