@brodehouse:
Again, at no point do I intend to say that a debate with a woman is always going to be better than a debate without one - my argument is based on probability, not absolutes. Based on the assumption that whomever is added to the debate is a good, but not perfect, debater, then the addition of someone with experience in a different facet of the debate is more likely to come up with new and relevant points in that area than someone without the experience. If the person was a perfect debater, then they would be able to come up with every relevant point with perfect clarity and lucidity whatever their background; if they were a poor debater they would be unable to come up with anything new to add to the discussion. All I am saying is that a diverse set of debaters is more likely to discuss a more diverse set of issues than a homogeneous one, assuming that the debaters are decent but not perfect.
Also, to disagree with one very specific point you made:
...equality is not a matter of perspective but a matter of fact.
By definition, one cannot debate facts. Equality is absolutely a matter of perspective - one can, on close examination, decide that there are significant equality differences between men and women, but if you take a different perspective; the context of equality in Western countries compared to other cultures, the context of equality of both extremes on either side of the poverty line, the context of equality of humans and animals; there are a million ways one can consider equality. And thus, while if you can all agree on a definition of equality you can define each and every case to be equal or not, the debate is on how it can be decided whether two groups are equal (i.e. how we have to weight each factor in deciding equality), and this is very much a matter of opinion.
Log in to comment