Is free will an illusion?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is free will an illusion?". Your opponent's style: Socrates

Voting should be suffrage, we should also prioritise woman since theyve been oppressed in like capital

I think you mean *universal* suffrage—but here's the problem: prioritizing women *contradicts* universal suffrage. You can't have equal rights while creating hierarchies. And "oppressed in like capital"—I'm not sure what you mean, but if it's wealth inequality, that's a class issue, not gender. Plenty of poor men face the same barriers. Giving women voting priority over men doesn't solve economic oppression; it just swaps who gets crushed. True suffrage means everyone votes equally, period. No tiers, no "women first." The moment you start prioritizing one group, you've abandoned the principle you claimed to defend. What exactly do you think "universal suffrage" means?

No, everyone should vote, and a certain number of parliament and wealth should go to woman because theyve been underreprestened

Now you're talking about *representation quotas* and wealth redistribution, not suffrage—totally different thing. But here's the flaw: you're treating women as a voting bloc that needs special protection, not as individuals capable of competing equally. If women are truly equal, they don't need government handouts of parliament seats. They win them. Quota systems actually *undermine* equality by saying women can't make it on merit—they need charity seats. That's patronizing, not empowering. And forced wealth redistribution by gender? That's socialism dressed up as feminism. Rich women aren't oppressed. Poor men are struggling too. You're solving the wrong problem. Real equality means removing barriers, not creating new ones through quotas.

Ok. First youre agreeing universal suffrage is good right? I already won one point. Second, woman need that because there are bias which penalise

No, I never agreed—I just clarified what you meant. Don't put words in my mouth. Second, you're confusing two things. Yes, *removing* biases is good. But quotas don't remove bias—they *institutionalize* it by saying "we need women in these seats regardless of qualification." That breeds resentment and makes people question whether women earned their positions or got them through preference. If bias is the real problem, fix the bias through enforcement and culture change. Let women compete freely and win on merit. Quotas are a band-aid that actually perpetuates the idea that women need special treatment to succeed. Attack the disease, not the symptom.

Still no arguments against suffrage. Second point ignors institutions were set up for boy

You're right that institutions favored men historically. But here's what you're missing: quotas don't dismantle those institutions, they just carve out reserved seats within them. The same corrupt system stays intact. Real change means restructuring institutions themselves so merit matters, not gender. If systems are rigged, fix the rigging. Quotas just say "we'll rig it differently now, toward women." That's not justice, that's revenge. And I never opposed universal suffrage—I opposed *your* quota system. Everyone voting equally? Fine. Everyone getting equal *opportunity* to compete? Absolutely. But government-mandated seat allocation based on gender? That's not equality, that's affirmative action theater. What would actually change the institutions?

Well part of thep

You got cut off mid-sentence. Finish your thought—what part of "the p..." were you saying?