args

Feminism is no longer beneficial in America

CONTENTION ONE: SUBPOINT A: Pro: "My CONRAD study made addressing your first 4 sources obsolete." Well, then I guess didn't even need to respond to CONRAD -- because my studies all offered evidence against Pro's conclusion. Pro: "The judges do not have to accept them as true. I'm new to this site, but I've never seen any sort of a debate where one of the debaters tells the judges what they have to do." This is standard debate practice in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and Public Forum Debate. When one side fails to respond to ("drops") one of the other side's arguments, that argument becomes "true". SUBPOINT B: Pro: "I do not have the burden of proving that there are biological differences that result in men working more full time jobs than women, this burden of proof relies on "Con". Er, Pro has the burden to prove that men are equally privileged to women. Not Con. The fact is, if society is messed up, then feminism is useful. The only way Pro can get around this is some inherent difference between males and females -- such as genetics. Since Pro has not done so, you must vote Neg. Pro: "As for your second point, it seems like you are asking me to prove that having a child is a biological action - I'll let that question answer itself." Pro doesn't seem to get it. Child birth is genetic, which I accepted and accept. But this part of CONRAD's study also included "child care and elder care", neither of which is genetic. A man can care just as well for kids as a woman. The only reason women do more child care and elder care is societal inequality, which feminism seeks to redress. I mean, come on, isn't this one of the big MRA talking points Pro: "Third, the CONRAD study answers the question of why mothers work less while they have a child, as does my previous source." Pro asserts this, without showing us where. I have shown that women are unfairly treated compared to men when they have a kid: Even excluding for pregnancy, mothers get only 79% of what fathers get [5]. This is societal injustice, and must be corrected for; thus, feminism is relevant. Pro: "The CONRAD study does not support Con's point that women are "unfairly treated in promotion"; you cannot prove unfair promotion bias unless you examine the resumes of every applicant." Right. Which is why, even though women attain equal or slightly higher levels of education, men get promoted 3 *times* as often. I guess men are just *inherently* 3 times better at, well, everything. Pro: "Con failed to investigate my source for my assertion that women are biologically disposed to not seek higher paying jobs." Pro's "source" was to assert that women turn themselves into victims of a nonexistent patriarchy. Pro also failed to investigate my evidence that pointed out that there's nothing women can do to get ahead. I quote myself: "Females that more aggressively pursue better pay or career advancement are discriminated against [6]." CONTENTION TWO: SUBPOINT A: Pro: "Gamergate can be summed up in one video." Pro: "If Con had taken the time to view my videos, they would have seen the blatant examples of violence committed by feminists." You mean the videos of total length 45:00? This is why videos are a bad source -- they waste people's time. By the way, everyone, just watch this video [13] and you'll SEE that feminism is true! You have to watch the whole thing though, it's only 10 hours or so Pro: "Also, Con is using "rationalwiki" as a source; using rationalwiki as a source is akin to using conservapedia." Con provides no evidence that RationalWiki is a bad source, merely asserting that it is comparable to another bad source, Conservapedia. RationalWiki and Conservapedia have pretty forking different viewpoints: Conservapedia bans literally everyone they disagree with; RationalWiki bans those who spam. RationalWiki has been cited directly over 50 times in published works [11][12]; Conservapedia has been cited only as an example of a "Conservative" Wikipedia, almost never as a useful source of knowledge. Furthermore, my opponent might have a point if the RationalWiki article I've cited here wasn't a ridiculously well-cited piece, using over 360 different sources [8]. Pretty much no statement in that article isn't backed up by, y'know, reality. SUBPOINT B: 1. k at your k 2. Pro: "Strawman. I never said that there was a feminist conspiracy." Just a lie dissemination network, right? Pro: "As for The Amazing Atheist's rape jokes, they are just that. Jokes." When a joke degrades sexual assault for the purposes of weak humor, I think we can safely hate on the jokemaker. 3. Pro: "I am not an advocate for the Republican party." And nor did I say so! My point is that the Republican party does criticize feminism, without media censorship. 4. MY OPPONENT CONTINUES TO IGNORE THE CRUCIAL ARGUMENT OF SAMPLE TEXT [5][17][2]. VOTE CON ALL THE WAY [9]. 5. Prefer my Gamergate source over his [9]. It's forking ridiculously well-cited and I've summarized it here for those who can't bother to read it. His is just some annoyingly long video, which he doesn't actually summarize in-round. 6. Pro: "Critiquing the word "feminism" is impossible, because even though they don't agree with each other, the majority respond to criticism in the same way." See 3. 7. Pro: "I'm quite sorry" A is the interp: Debaters must not be exclusionary. B is the violation: Pro can't undo the exclusionary harms of anti-blindism. C is the standards: Exclusionary rhetoric shuts out debaters from debate, which destroys it as an educational activity and removes its fairness. D is the voters: Gotta be fair & educational mang 8. Pro: "Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if it had been two feminists protesting, and a man slapped one of them? It is a total double standard. That video highlights the hypocrisy of feminism." OH NOES SOME FEMINISTS ARE HYPOCRITES I guess that means feminism is hypocritical Oh. Wait. That's not how broad political movements work [14]. SUMMARY Pro: "Am I being trolled?" Trolls don't exist. Only lulz. Pro: "You also made your opening statement a rebuttal, which was quite unfair. .... Also, I'd like to repeat that I didn't know I was supposed to open with a full on argument, and someone in the comments even reprimanded Con for doing so." Next time, say "first round acceptance". The rules don't exist unless you state 'em in your 1st round. Them's the rules about rules. VOTING ISSUES Conduct: Nobody's at fault here. All fun and games. Grammar: i hav liek 1000% bettar grammer then h3 duz, vot mi yp plz Arguments: Solid Con vote. A gender gap has been proven to exist, and it's the only major issue in this debate. Even Pro's sources agree with Con about this. The only other issue is the "feminist juggernaut", which was such a messy debate that I think nobody wins there. Thus, the only issue you can vote on is a gender pay gap, which is clear Con ground. Sources: Solid Con vote. Con has provided numerous published studies to back up Con's points; Pro has tended towards YouTube videos and blogposts. Furthermore, Con has 14 sources, compared to Pro's 13, of which many were effectively different videos of the same thing. THE ONE THING YOU NEED TO READ BEFORE VOTING A gender pay gap exists. CONRAD agrees; the Bureau of Labor Statistics agrees; the Joint Economic Committee agrees; the Government Accountability Office agrees. Pro has never proven that the gender pay gap is 0% -- instead, Pro has merely proven that the gender pay gap might be more like 5%. As long as the gender pay gap isn't 0%, feminism is relevant. [11] https://en.wikipedia.org... [12] https://en.wikipedia.org... [13] [14] https://en.wikipedia.org...