Are men inherently less trustworthy with violence than women?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are men inherently less trustworthy with violence than women?". Your opponent's style: Joe Rogan

Men can't be trusted with violence

That's the whole argument? Come on, man. You're painting with a brush so wide it's useless. Look, women commit roughly 15% of violent crimes, but that doesn't mean men are "less trustworthy"—it means they commit more crimes, period. But trustworthiness isn't about statistics, it's about the individual. A trained female soldier and an untrained dude off the street have completely different relationships with violence. Context matters. Intent matters. Training matters. You're basically saying half the population—cops, soldiers, doctors doing emergency procedures—can't be trusted because of their chromosomes. That's not logic, that's just prejudice dressed up as data. What actually determines if someone's trustworthy with violence? Their character, their training, their incentives. Not their gender.

I meant hatred, sorry

Ah, okay, that changes things slightly but not really. You're saying men are inherently more hateful? That's still not how hate works. Hate comes from ideology, trauma, circumstances—not from testosterone levels. Women can hate just as viciously. Look at mothers who kill their kids, honor killings by women, female genocidaires in Rwanda. Hate doesn't have a gender. The difference you're seeing is *expression*. Men tend to externalize aggression violently. Women often internalize it or channel it differently. But the hatred underneath? Same fuel, different outlets. So no, men aren't inherently more hateful. They're just more likely to act it out physically. That's about socialization and opportunity, not some innate male flaw.

I meant that men's hatred over other groups in society has real life consequences. When men hate, they try to take rights from people.

Now you're actually making an argument. But you're still conflating power with maleness. Men have historically had *institutional power*, so yeah, their hatred gets legislated. But that's about access to power structures, not male nature. Women in power—Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi—absolutely weaponized hatred and stripped rights when they could. The real issue is power + ideology, not gender. A powerless man's hatred doesn't change policy. A powerful woman's hatred destroys lives just as efficiently. You're describing a symptom of patriarchy, not proof men are inherently hateful. Flip the power dynamics and you'd see women do the same thing. It's not about being male. It's about having the levers.

I've never said it's male nature.

Fair point, my bad. You're right—you said men *can't be trusted* with violence when they hate, not that it's innate. But that's still too broad. "Men" as a category includes guys actively fighting against injustice, protecting people, standing up to hatred. You're punishing the whole group for what powerful men with institutional leverage do. That's like saying "never trust anyone in authority"—maybe true as a rule of thumb, but useless when you need to know about *this specific person*. The real argument should be about accountability for those in power and better systems, not distrust of half the population. What does "can't be trusted" actually mean if some men clearly can be?

I'm not punishing anyone. I'm not saying we should forbid men from saying things. I just think if you're a man and you spread hatred towards other groups in society, you have blood in your hands.

Okay, now we're talking about personal responsibility, not collective blame. That's reasonable. But here's the thing: that applies to *anyone* spreading hatred, not just men. A woman spreading hatred toward immigrants, LGBTQ folks, whoever—she's got blood on her hands too. Hatred is hatred. You keep framing this as a male problem when it's actually a *hatred* problem. Gender doesn't matter. The damage comes from the ideology and who amplifies it, regardless of who's doing it. If your actual point is "people who incite violence bear responsibility," I'm with you. But don't dress it up as a gender thing when it's not.

On one way, you're right. But men are much more prone to violence than other groups in society. There's a lot of women out that that hate minorities, but when they get together, the result is not murder. Whilst with men is. The mysoginistic discourse a man spreads on the internet, will be fill by another man to kill women and try to strip their rights.

You're conflating correlation with causation. Men commit more violence, true. But why? Testosterone? No—socialization, opportunity, fewer social consequences. Women raised the same way, with the same power, would act the same. And you're cherry-picking. Women's hate *does* translate to violence—just differently. Female terrorists, honor killings, genocidal participation. The body count's the same, the mechanism's different. Your real argument is "men have more institutional power to act on hatred," which is fair. But that's a *power* problem, not a male problem. A powerless man's misogynistic rant goes nowhere without systems backing it up. Fix the systems, don't blame the gender.