Men should not be expected to put the toilet seat down for women.

The initial argument stated by my opponent is that men should not be expected to close the toilet seat. We could argue what consists of the seat and lid and whether those are separate or one in the same that would be bickering of semantics and not productive. However, my initial argument was to illustrate that in a wide range of scenarios men should be expected to close the lid of the toilet. Since one cannot close the lid without closing the seat then they are expected to close to seat and for the arguments made in my first argument, which my opponent admitted were valid. It would be similar to stating that people should be expected to use their blinkers in automobiles because they should be expected to drive safely. You could use your blinkers without driving safely, but in order to drive safely you are required to use your blinkers. Hence, if you are willing to accept the argument that men should be expected to close the lid to the toilet then you are accepting that in a wide case of scenarios men should be expected to lower the seat. My opponent also suggested that lowering the seat in some way makes men subordinate to women. He, however, offers no arguments to show how this action would imply subservience. Merely engaging in an act of courtesy does not make one subservient. In fact through history women have been considered subservient to men but have been expected to perform societal courtesies such as rising when a woman enters the room, pulling a chair out for a lady, and opening a door for a lady. These simple acts do not create subservience even though they are expected in polite society. Additionally while systematically lowering the seat will benefit women all the time it will also benefit women the majority of the time. Finally before I delve further into the efficiency issue I was actually reviewing some statistics problems and realize that my original argument was incorrect. I suggested that three out of four times in a mixed gender environment the seat will need to be down and even in an all male environment it will need to be down one out of two times. This is incorrect. For each party using the bathroom there are three options, Bowel Movement, Urinary movement, or both. Therefore 5 out of 6 times the toilet seat will be lowered and even in a male only environment the statistics rise to 2 out of 3 times. So this shows that even in a single gender environment it is far more efficient for everybody to leave the seat down. A single person using the bathroom would still benefit from leaving the seat down every time, regardless of gender. My opponent doesn't seem to quite understand the nature of my efficiency argument though. It is not more efficient because on person is doing someone else's work, as suggested by the toothpaste example. It is more efficient because there is a great likelihood that the seat will remain down several times in a row, not to be moved again until another male makes a urinary movement. The toothpaste example, by comparison, will only benefit one person, the next person to brush their teeth. As illustrated above if someone were to put the seat down it would not just benefit the next person, but likely several other people beyond them. In fact, as illustrated above, it would be most likely to benefit them if they were the next person to use the restroom. So not only is it beneficial to the group as a whole, but it is a benefit to the individual. So, if lowering the seat benefits even males the majority of the time there is no reason not to do it. The only argument against it would be out of spite, since the seat up is never a benefit to women. It is interesting to find that one could more logically claim that leaving the seat up is not in some way subservience to women, since it does benefit men as well, but it is rather an attack against women.