args

The feminism movement should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts

Rebuttals: 1. Men are stronger than women. Men are stronger than women. Men are stronger than women... Repetition ad nauseam is fun! My opponent makes the claim that my the content of my first argument was a straw-man, but I cannot concede to such a claim; if my first argument was fallacious on the basis given by my opponent, than his first argument was also fallacious. This is due to the fact that he did not provide any real evidence for feminism being irreproachable, however, he simply argued that feminism "sounds good" because of a few seemingly positive examples, for example women's right to education, which he later on in this round insinuates that I am against, which is simply not true – which is in any case irrelevant to the overarching debate. However, the referenced segment of my argument, which he deemed to be a straw-man, was simply evidence for feminism not being infallible, as part of the holistic argument against pro's proposition that "feminism should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts"; in that since: Feminism is not irreproachable The age of a piece of text does not void its intellectual, ethical and/or social value we are lead to the conclusion that the positive assertion of my opponents proposition, on an inherent basis, is invalid. Hence why my opponent has not actually refuted my argument, and it follows that in the very least my opponent has failed to meet the BoP of his proposition. 2. Bronze Age Man dumb. Today Man smart. (Woman incubator). My opponent then decides to give an anecdote of "Bronze Age Man", who seems like an interesting character, but does not give any insight into the topic at hand. But, in all seriousness, my opponent reduces ancient people into cartoon-like stereotypes without providing any sources for his allegations; he makes baseless claims, on the basis of whim, as I quote "I imagine that". Not only does my opponent make unfounded generalisations, after providing his wonderful insight on Bronze Age man, all he does is suggest that such thinking has no place in modern society, which, given his caveman archetype who cannot string a proper sentence together, I would agree with him. Although the question arises over the relevancy of all this in the debate, as at best it seems to be be reasoning as to why anti-abortion perspectives are invalid, which even if we assumed that his universal description of Bronze Age man was correct, it does not diminish the validity of the anti-abortion viewpoint, as even a broken clock is right twice a day. Finally, he throws in an attack towards my person, in what I can only assume is a means to ridicule my argument, by ridiculing me to the audience. Oh, also, we still have sticks and stones, they are not just a feature of the Bronze Age. 3. Would Bronze Age philosophy, spirituality and morality have been different if they had access to modern medicine? My opponent asks me this question, of whether or not I think that the existence of modern medicine would have made a difference to Bronze Age philosophy, spiritualism and morality, to which all I can say is, most probably. However, I do not believe that modern medicine would have made a difference to the philosophy, spirituality or morality of the Bible. This is because I believe in the that the Bible is from God [15], and as such do not believe that the societal factors would change the core truths within the texts. My opponent also off-handedly mentions cultural changes, but once again, I'm left questioning the relevancy of all this. He finishes by stating that the passage which I cited in my fourth argument, Exodus 21:22-24 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her [...] if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life" [13], is not referencing abortion; whilst he may be right in the strictest sense, it still gives us an understanding that there are ethical qualms when it comes to a fetus' life, as we are given an illustration where given any harm to a fetus, they were to take "life for life". If this is not sufficient, I once again refer to Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill" [10], which clearly condemns the taking of life, and then to Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee" [16], which clearly shows that God knows a person before birth. The point I am making, for my opponent's sake, is that I believe that abortion is an immoral act, and as such feminism should be impeded on the grounds of establishing access to abortion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will quickly like to also point out that in this round my opponent agrees with my premises, but denies my conclusion of him not meeting his BoP, without providing justification for said denial. He also goes on to state that he has presented a sufficient argument for the "world-wide perspective", although this implies some form of no true Scotsman fallacy within the constraints of the initial definition provided for feminism. [15] https://www.biblegateway.com... [16] https://www.biblegateway.com...