args

Feminism is necessary

Thanks again, Pro, for your response and thanks for creating this debate. It's definitely been interesting. Having said that, I did have a few concerns regarding your last argument. Let me explain: Dropped Argument Last round I very directly said that my opponent's definition of "requisite" should be disregarded. I said this because she was using the definition of a noun, and the word "necessary" is used as an adjective in the debate resolution "Feminism is necessary". Because of this, I said, Pro's definition/argument should be disregarded. So, with that in mind, what was my opponent's response???? NOTHING. She didn't even ATTEMPT to discredit my argument. By being silent, I can only presume she did so because she was not able to refute my argument. As captain of the debate team, it seems rather unlikely that she just forgot to respond. After all, with only 2,000 characters per round, it's not a very long debate. I encourage the voters to see her drop for what it is, an admission of guilt. What We're Debating Again, my opponent seems to be trying to change the debate as we go along. She brings up many reasons why we should like feminism, but when reading them, ask yourself "Is this what they were supposed to be debating?" I would argue the answer is no. For example... Do we have to have a "fully functional, fair society"? No. Do we have to "live cohesively"? No. Do people have to have "a sense of self-worth and identity"? No. Certainly all those things are nice, but we don't have to have them, therefore, feminism is NOT necessary. Straw Man Argument My opponent has engaged in another logical fallacy. This one is known as a straw man argument. This is done when someone misrepresents her opponent's arguments. [5] I never said that the age of something determined it's worth. What I said was that we can tell something is NOT necessary if we can live without it. Even if that something is helpful, if we can go on without it, it's NOT necessary. That's exactly what we see with feminism. Feminism may or not be beneficial, but that's NOT what we're debating. We're debating if it's necessary, and since we could (and have) lived life without it... It's not necessary. No Semantics Here I used generally accepted definitions from a reliable dictionary. Conclusion I think the choice is clear. I showed that feminism is NOT necessary. After I did that, Pro tried to change what we were debating in order to salvage her chances of winning. I ask the voters to recognize her attempt, and to vote for Con accordingly. Sources: 5. http://www.nizkor.org...