Women deserve to rule the world.

I support your decision! Good job! @RedGirlz deserved it.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/antonioesfandiari-aww-you-cant-debate-so-u-block-me

HHAHAHA one block at a time! 

  Reminds me of this one time at one of my jobs, I had an evil boss who enjoyed ruling over us "peons".  Yea, well, this one particular day he ordered me to put these cinder BLOCKS in order all around his house.  See, he wanted to make some sort of fortress.  

I instead took his wife for a joy ride in their 1969 cherry colored convertible corvette.  Just like this one

We cruised around until sunset and then I drove her home.  I then took the car with me.  I had it for about two weeks until the police found it in one of my stash spots.  Man that was fun.

I've only blocked two people from this thread (i had never even blocked ANYONE before this thread) I had to block them because they persistently avoided contributing anything of value to the discussion, and resorted to personal attacks and incessant babble while ignoring everyone else.  I am typically against blocking people in any discussion, but if they are going to just troll and take up half a page at a time while doing it, well...

Joined "1 minute ago" lmao I wonder who you could be 

If you want to find someone who can help you fix the system, going to chess.com probably isn't your best option. I'd recommend you try to get Noam Chomsky to run for president, and good luck.

 Anyone who would like to discuss corruption in power, the floor is back open to them.. Wars, politics, companies being allowed to "own" and harvest earth's unrenewable resources, all influenced by evil greedy corrupt rulers who are stuck in a competitive vicious cycle like a child who is addicted to a video game.  To these people, the world and its inhabitants are objects.  Our future is only going to get worse as these greedy selfish people will become more and more powerful.  The power gap will only increase as they will always have the best technology, the best defense, and the best offense.  

Well I think long before ANY big problem like this can be solved, its details must be thoroughly examined, discussed, and understood by a lot of people.  I am not trying to change the world simply with this thread, I am trying to evolve discussion on a problem that is leaving a very bleak future for mankind.  

I unblocked REDGIRLYZ so he/she can debate me here. 

 Redgirl At no point did you attempt to have a logical argument and I will prove that even from the get go you were drowning in logical fallacies.  First of all, this was my original argument:
Women have been treated as less-than-equals for thousands of years, yet they are the ones that give birth, protect our babies, and do most of the child-raising , they are the reason we haven't already gone extinct from relentless genocide.  They are the nurturing, conservative, preservation-based counterparts to our aggressive impulsive violent selves.  A balance of the two was needed for most of our evolution, perhaps it was best for survival for men to be in charge back then, but now, and surviving in the future with exponentially-advancing weapons, perhaps it is safer for the survival of the human race if mostly women ran the world for a while.  My argument was that women are more compassionate, patient, nurturing, preservation-based than men. In all of this drama you have failed to address this once.  
This was your "rebuttal" Men are the reason we live in a thriving society now, so I disagree with this "women have to rule the world" mentality just because we haven't done it yet."   Your rebuttal has 3 key mistakes. 
(1) "Men are the reason we live in a thriving society now"  You can't prove this, yet you present it as some kind of fact.  Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false   
(2) Your argument ignores my main points completely.
(3) You even tried to restate my argument as something else to refute, haha... You cited "Women have to rule the world mentality, just because they haven't done it yet" This was not my argument.  My argument was NOT that women should rule the world, because they haven't done it yet.  You put words in my mouth and then tried to refute those... Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.

You were more interested in having a catfight than an actual discussion and I blocked you when you reached the bottom of the pyramid 

RedGirlyz You are unblocked!  Let's hear your defense of your logical fallacies, starting with the very first ones you made.    Don't worry.  I'll wait.

I hate that I wasted my time on a troll, but hopefully at least some of us (myself included) gained something from this and learned how to shut these guys down before they get you in some kind of confusing circular argument appealing to everything except logic.  

Great, more logical fallacies haha, are you serious?
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.
Jordan Peterson, while he may be a respectable authority in some areas, has never proven that "Men are the reason society is flourishing today"   And if he has proven that, please cite this information before you again, state it as fact.

Redgirlz wrote "2. Argument didn't ignore your points. your posts name is why women should be in charge, I responded to that directly. After you tried to explain what u were trying to say I attempted to respond to that as well. "
Incorrect, you have not and still refuse to respond to my main point, which was that women are more compassionate, nurturing, patient, less-violent and impulsive, etc.  You haven't even addressed this once.  You fail to see the point over and over again.  Weapons get more powerful and dangerous, women are less violent. 
  At this point I am not even mad at you, RedGirlZ I am just disappointed.  

Please don't use personal attacks, as I will have to block you again.  Once you resort to personal attacks on me I know you have given up on trying to have a logical debate.

Redgirlz... Bro... I have used accurate quotations for everything you have said, every rebuttal, I have not misrepresented your arguments in the slightest. I have used exact quotations of your own words!  I have shown you the logical fallacies in your argument. You constantly misquote me and misrepresent my argument, and you made a ridiculous claim as a fact that you cannot prove.  I am asking you please...  I love you, we are all human.  You are my brother/sister whichever you are.  Please just stop.  <3 

OK, I will give you one last chance (whether you deserve it or not I can't answer)
You continue to claim that "Men are the reason that society is flourishing today"
(1) EVEN IF THIS WERE TRUE! it doesn't directly refute my main claim that women are more peaceful, nurturing, and more suited to prevent us from violence. 
(2) We can argue for or against this tangent all day, but you can never prove it, because it is not something that can be proven.  Someone can just as easily claim that "women are the reason society is flourishing today" because most men are motivated or inspired or guided by some woman in their life... Can I prove this??? Absolutely not, which is why I am not stating it as fact, as you have.  
So here is your one last chance, either prove your point with REAL evidence, and not quotes from famous people, or stop making wild un-provable claims. 
Also it would be nice if you actually ADDRESSED my key point, which is usually a necessity for any productive debate (but maybe I am asking too much.

Redgirlz wrote: "So why do you think we have successful societies today? Because of women? who built the buildings we have? men. It's not a logical fallacy to use Jordan Petersons explanation of mens attributes. You've made a logical fallacy yourself by assuming im using Jordan Peterson to support my claim. I used him to explain what male attributes are einstein, and he is an expert at that, he's a clinical PSYCHOLOGIST. I never said that he agrees with what I have said. So, sorry, didn't use a logical fallacy there. "
Even here you fail to see the bigger picture... Who watched the children while men built the buildings?  Who got dinner ready?  Who nurtured and healed more of the sick, the wounded.  You are trying to make claims that are entirely one-sided, and also un-provable by both sides!

And again please stop putting words in my mouth or trying to change my main point.  

RedGirlz wrote: as to your point yet again that I didn't respond to what u just re-stated, I just did Sir, because I'm showing you that womens attributes aren't things that I think make good attribuets for a leader. Certainly some of them, but mens attributes generally allow them to be better leaders on average than women, which is what i said in an earlier comment.
First of all, my point wasn't necessarily that women make better leaders than men, or that you can measure their attributes in some quantifiable way.  My point was that women are less prone to violence, they are more nurturing, loving, caring, and weapons are getting more dangerous.  I can see why you have avoided addressing this 25 times, it's pretty solid and hard to argue against

I Don't think I have seen you make one post that didn't misrepresent my point. I did NOT say that simply that women are better leaders because of X attributes.  My point was very strongly tied to the Y factor that weapons are getting more and more dangerous.  If you look back you will see that I have pointed out that Hiroshima killed 150,000 people, and that we have over 14,000 weapons that are up to 1000 times as powerful as the nuclear warheads used on Hiroshima.  Another thing you are likely to ignore as it doesn't fit into your rebuttal very well, and again it's a very solid point.