₦airaland Forum

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'all round winner'. The moderator declared the opposing team winners of this debate by points accumulated, don't know why we're arguing this.

On the plus side MBJ, i have to give it to you....you're good. Great job

dont8: LOL!

But there is no winner, because Team Blue aptly represented by MBJ won individually.

My sincere apology goes to my Teammates for letting you guys down, but as you can see, I was only judged by one post against two am entitle to.

Looking forward to doing this again albeit, time consuming though.

Cheers.

lmfao consolation prize.
As Mz.C said two beats one and d Mod declared us winners hehe

Yay we win!!! Go Team Red!!

Thank you moderator, judges, co-debaters and viewers. I had fun doing this with y'all

I dunno about archaic but it made me laff my b.utt off

who concocted that? He's a genius with words.....eh i dnt believe him sha except with a few.
The food thingy, the stuff about her being an oriaku(once told a yoruba friend that) and the umuada's are one in a million.
Hahahahaha

[quote author=Mrs.Chima]It was very time consumjng and no more live debates for me![/quote]u just read my mind. This is my first n last live debate ever!

[quote author=Mrs.Chima]I saw someone typed fourth round....but i am glad thoughcis China was getting suspicious with my long and fast typing! Lol![/quote]lol don't murder your keyboard o. I'm too tired to think of participating in another round

[quote author=Mrs.Chima]Thanks for my points unbiased judges and good work opposing team..

I hope we do not have a week long final round...if of course i am in it.[/quote]wasn't that the final round we just completed? Thought twas a 3 rounds debate.

Lolaabokoku: aplology to evry 1.. 4 not login in all dis yl i was hospitalised but now am back and better!!!

thank God you're ok

Good morning everyone.

Yesterday's log

11am: rice n stew.
6pm: tea n bread.

Wasn't in the best of mood so cldnt eat properly.
Did a lot of walking yday too.

Excuse me judge Shollypopz, my score should be 31 not 33.

Oya off to bed all of u. Lemme watch my cartoon in peace.

like staph

shey na boredom dey worry u Lala?

the babe too fine joor..with badazz shape

lalaosky: ...ike, sugar lord?....uju, dont tell me you've fallen for his charms...*sad*..ike, what do you use in deceiving this gurls...

Uju, why is your day not that good?...don't give up hope, there is still time for your day to turn out as you wanted it to

hian whicch charm? abeg i'm anti charms oo. Na people dey fall for my charms instead.

I'm done with my posts.

This is my response to MBJ’s argument in the second round.

Right from the start, we can see that Acidosis is on the wrong track, calling such notion a gross misinformation, without asking or listening for the WHY of such action....... A clear point that we have to understand here is that the reason why some men today MUST assert their authority, while our forefathers didnt have to do so, is because some women of today want to be equal with men, while back in the days women knew their place in matrimony, and had no desire to challenge men's authority in marriage. Nowadays, since some women are different, some men MUST assert their authority....something that men back in the days didnt have to do.

Let me remind you that this topic is but a mere proposition. If it were a statement of fact, we will not have a need to debate on it.
The reason men think they have to assert authority/superiority today is because they feel threatened by women’s blossoming indeoendence. It is usually said among psychologists that men love when women are dependent on them; maybe it makes them feel macho, and that the moment they notice an independent streak they feel threatened. The simple truth is that we are in an enlightened age; the worls has clearly passed the stage where sexism was the order. Back in the days a woman wouldn’t dare speak about an abusive marriage because society didn’t see anything wrong with the way men treated their spouse, needless to say it was a man’s world. But today things are different and thanks to the men who were in power, women have been empowered to speak out.

The fact that Acidosis believes that a person who asserts his authority DOESNT love his partner, is where he is again not looking at this issue the RIGHT way, and obviously misunderstanding this notion. Asserting your authority has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with LOVE, and ALL to do with the mechanics of a union. You assert your authority for the betterment of your union, to make sure that both of you will love one another stronger, and the FAMILY even more, to make sure that both of you will work towards making the FAMILY better, and to make sure that the family is at its optimum....... And sadly, to do that, you sometimes have to give up on some few things that were available during the dating period
.You are absolutely right, this is what people should do when they enter a relationship, BUT, as this relationship develops into MARRIAGE, then the concern should be about the well-being of the FAMILY (aka unit as "ONE" ), rather than the sole needs of your partner. The partner is no more the focus here (aka #1), the FAMILY/UNIT is, and therefore some things may have to change.


What love isn’t is arrogant. A man who asserts superiority in marriage is certainly arrogant. How then can you say that a superior man actually loves his wife? Asserting authority and/or superiority has everything to do with love. Since my opponent has quoted from the bible I’m sure he is conversant with the book of 1st Corinthians 13; this chapter clearly states the characteristics of love. A man who loves his wife will ensure to make her happy and comfortable in that union; if not, why then do you describe her as ‘your other half’. It is important that a man knows that if his wife is not happy with the marriage then he can never be happy in it.

How can Acidosis (or any person out there) expect to have the same union in relationship, as you have in marriage? That's a different ball game entirely.
In a romantic relationship, a man DOESN'T have to assert his authority because the participants are still TWO separate entities who are dating and getting to know one another. So the man cares for the direct personal needs of this woman, and vice versa, and if they like what is provided to them, they happily continue in this relationship. On the other hand, in marriage they care for the family FIRST, therefore the sole personal needs of one of the participant may be overlooked (or put aside) to make sure that the union run smoothly. This is a very small price to pay in order to have a successful union.
A man in a romantic relationship DOES NOT see himself as an absolute monarch/boss, but when a man and a woman decide to take their relationship to the next level then there is a need for understanding that FAMILY would comes first, and this will supersede any personal needs that may be required by one of the participants. Most people in matrimony understand that and work in tandem to achieve such harmony, but sadly many dont and still want to have their personal needs satisfied over the needs of that said family........ And this is the reason why many men have to assert their authority in marriage.


A family is started by both man and woman. Like I mentioned they are both halves that make up a whole. For a relationship to wax strong then both need to be satisfied in its working. The first duty a man has is to his wife, likewise a woman’s duty is to her husband first; these two make up the family at its foundation and once there’s dissatisfaction on either side it affects the whole.
When the family’s well being is talked about, we need to understand that both man and woman each share an equal stake; since they started it together it means they both have a say in what goe on in it. Now in this decision making process, there may crop up some disagreements in how certain affairs should be run, the question is how these disagreements should be resolved. Does the man go on to assert authority even when it seems like the woman may be on the right path instead? Many a marriages have failed in the past simply because the men in a bid ti assert superiority refused to listen to their wives. Men’s a natural instinct to conquer and possess have sometimes led families to bankruptcy; whereas the natural instinct of the woman to nurture coupled with her intuition have saved most families.


The liberation of men from the assertive call in relationship will only happen when all women decide to be submissive for the betterment of their marriage. Please, do not take MBJ's words as an invitation to have men treat women badly, but simply as an invitation to love women properly, in a safe family environment, in order to make marriages function at their possible best, and in harmony.

My opponent has based his argument on the assumption that a woman is exceeding her limits in the marriage. What then is the measurement of a woman’s marital limits? Is he then saying that when a woman is submissive then the man may not assert superiority?
I can also then say that in an ideal union a man will not be right to assert superiority and authority in a relationship.

Thank you.

This is my response to MBJ’s opening argument.

So before we start this debate, we should all understand that to ASSERT anything, you have to possess that character/faculty. So let's look at how we (men) automatically got that authority/superiority in marriage, before we could ever think of asserting it. To do so we have to look at MARRIAGE. Marriage is the union of two individual who want to grown and share their lives together, build a strong bond/unit, in order to strive for the future as a family. Like anything else out there, marriage can only function PROPERLY, if all the participants UNDERSTAND and ACCEPT their duties in that said unit, and fulfill them to the best of their abilities. There is no need to dwell on WHAT these duties are, as it is irrelevant to this debate. What is important here is to understand that both participants want to achieve the best for that said union.

You are right in saying that the purpose of marriage is to form a strong bond/unit and that each partner wants what is best for that union. But then again, for this union to function properly there need to be an understanding of what the roles of the man and woman should be and the dedication in carrying out said duties will determine the strength and/or weakness of the bond bearing in mind that a duty is not shoved on a partner since it is a mutual union; instead duties are apportioned after discussions by both party.

Just like any partnership/organization, we all know that in order to avoid mayhem and chaos, you need to have a dedicated person who will have the ultimate say on any disagreement. There can be NO PEACE in any partnership/organization/union if a dedicated "leader" is not chosen. To have a leader DOES NOT mean that this person is better than others, it simply means that this dedicated person would be the one who who has the ultimate say on all the necessary important decision, bring order and control to the unit, "if" some disagreements should arise. Sadly, it is socially inadequate/wrong (in most of the world that we live in today), to have a woman in charge in matrimony. She may be the silent leader inside the home, but to the outside world, she must submit and let that man be viewed as the leader. A marriage with a woman being in charge will AUTOMATICALLY be viewed as abnormal by society (unless you live in some Scandinavian countries etc)

My opponent needs to understand that being a ‘leader’ and being ‘superior’ are two different things. A superior believes he is more important than others; a leader on the other hand carries his unit along. A leader listens to opinions and actually considers them; a superior by definition does not really care about your input instead he goes on to do whatsoever he desires. What society thinks of your marriage is of little importance, the outside world does not run a home. To have a woman as the leader in a home and then pretend to the society that the man actually makes the rules is nothing short of hypocritical. If a man feels inadequate enough to carry a small unit along and his spouse has the capability to do so, are you suggesting that the man in all his inexperience still make decisions? If the answer to that is yes, how does that decision reflect on the need to form a strong bond and proper development to the family?

So do men really have authority?! No, but this is how great marriages have been portrayed through generations and generations. Society wants it to look that way.....and many of us grew up under such school of thought (daddy went to work and put food on the table, while mommy took care of the children/home). Many are conditioned to believe that this is how a good home should be; how a "real" man is pictured; how a great family function.
Let's all remember that just because daddy has the ultimate say, DOES NOT mean mommy cannot put her input in the family affairs. so really, when people want to assert their Authority/superiority, they simply want to put a certain foundation in marriage that we all know has been successful for centuries. the important question IS: is that such a bad thing? can there really be two cooks in one kitchen?!

Of course men have no authority in marriage, but you’re supporting this motion which means you agree with the proposition. To assert superiority means that mommy has little or no say in what daddy desires. All you have succeeded in doing here is contradict yourself. You are either in support of the motion or you are against it; you are simply seeking a middle ground.

The sad fact of this matter is that many people mistakingly believe that being the "leader" in matrimony means to have power over another, to dismiss whatever comes out of their brain etc....which is not true. It simply is a way for women to show devotion to their union (although the points they may bring to the table will always be evaluated). Just because a wife allows her husband to be in charge of the union, does NOT mean that this person has power over her, it simply means that you trust that person's judgment, and let them be the ultimate say in the affairs of that said family, in order to not have chaos in this partnership/organization/union. A submissive wife can still give her opinion/say in a marriage, and bring great points to the table to make the union better, so long as she understands who will have the ultimate say if disagreements were to come about. This is one of the main characters sought after by most men looking for a good wife......to be submissive.

Men want women who submit to them in humility, women want men who respects their opinions. That is what an ideal marriage should look like. Asserting authority or superiority however does not reflect an ideal marriage; instead it means that the man thinks his opinion should always supersede his spouse’s because society expects a man makes the rules.

So, now that we understand where men AUTOMATICALLY got the authority/superiority status in marriage, lets look at WHY someone would want to assert it:

- It could also be because of power.
Due to the fact that a man bring much more to a union (financially), he may believe that he has the upper hand and can decide on what’s best for
this r/ship (or not). This is a common occurrence when men don’t see the value of women who care for the home, raise children, cook and clean, instead of bringing a pay check.


Bringing home a paycheck does not give one the upper hand. The economic situation of the country today makes it absolutely necessary for women to work and generate additional income for the family. Following this trend can I then say that a woman who earns more than her husband does, and still takes on the traditional role of taking care of the family can be the superior? I’m sure that will be seen as a taboo! Any man that thinks a housewife is not contributing equally to the relationship can explain how he feels not finding food on the table, his children looking unkempt, and a dirty home when he returns from work. The simple fact that she ensures a serene environment for him is a mighty task.

- it could be that this man paid his bride price, therefore believes that he owns his wife.
Sadly, we have to blame society for this, and all the parents who gladly sell off their daughters, like she is some commodity via "bride price". here is how some men think: IF I BUY SOMETHING; I OWN IT! therefore if i pay bride price, i own that women. Any person who owns something automatically has authority over it.

Paying of bride price has always being an African tradition. In other countries like India where a woman pays dowry, can it be said that since she paid for him he is her puppet? Again, amongst the monarchs in England a man chooses a bride he is sure has enough money to add to his wealth. So can it also be deduced that since she contributes more financially he is her property? Paying of bride price has always been a means for a man to thank the family of the bride for raising such a remarkable female. If a man didn’t think it necessary having a wife that would complete him, the mere idea of a payment would chase him away.

-
It could be that his wife is doing something that is UNACCEPTABLE in marriage.
Many women may want to do things that is regarded as unacceptable behaviors for married women (such unacceptable behaviors should be discussed BEFORE marriage). So, a man needs to step in and take the bull by the horn, and set this lady straight so she doesn’t forget who she is. If after asserting his authority, this lady still wants to live her unacceptable lifestyle, then this man needs to separate himself from such lady, and go find a lady that fits his requirements.

Let us a look at some ‘unacceptable behavior’ for married men instead. A man who leaves his wife at home with his kids and goes on a trip with a young lady is most certainly deemed acceptable in a marriage. Society always says ‘don’t fight your husband because if you do, he’ll leave you’; this is a clear depiction of double standards; this is the kind of thing that happens when you let society run your marriage. A man is allowed to be unfaithful but a woman isn’t. A man who asserts superiority and authority in a marriage will never think about his spouse’s feelings; man who is a ‘leader’ does.


- And last but not least, RELIGION also has a big part to play in this matter, because it is clearly written in the Bible/Qur'an that a man should always have authority over women.

It is also written in the scriptures that a woman was made out of necessity for man to have a partner. A man by scriptural values is to love his wife and not take her as a property, or an inferior being.

Like I stated earlier, it is obvious my opponent is against the notion of a man asserting authority over his wife but instead he expects them to be leaders. A leader does not assert superiority, instead guides by example.
Thank you.