args

Feminism is no longer beneficial in America

SUBPOINT A: My CONRAD study made addressing your first 4 sources obsolete. 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. You also made your opening statement a rebuttal, which was quite unfair. SUBPOINT B: 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". 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. Third, the CONRAD study answers the question of why mothers work less while they have a child, as does my previous source [3]. 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. Con failed to investigate my source for my assertion that women are biologically disposed to not seek higher paying jobs. SUBPOINT A: Gamergate can be summed up in one video [1]. If Con had taken the time to view my videos, they would have seen the blatant examples of violence committed by feminists. Also, Con is using "rationalwiki" as a source; using rationalwiki as a source is akin to using conservapedia. SUBPOINT B: 1. k 2. Strawman. I never said that there was a feminist conspiracy. As for The Amazing Atheist's rape jokes, they are just that. Jokes. 3. I am not an advocate for the Republican party. 4. How does "sample text" mean anything? Am I being trolled right now..........? 5. New source [1] 6. Critiquing the word "Con failed to investigate my source for my assertion that women are biologically disposed to not seek higher paying jobs. SUBPOINT A: Gamergate can be summed up in one video [1]. If Con had taken the time to view my videos, they would have seen the blatant examples of violence committed by feminists. Also, Con is using "rationalwiki" as a source; using rationalwiki as a source is akin to using conservapedia. SUBPOINT B: 1. k 2. Strawman. I never said that there was a feminist conspiracy. As for The Amazing Atheist's rape jokes, they are just that. Jokes. 3. I am not an advocate for the Republican party. 4. How does "sample text" mean anything? Am I being trolled right now..........? 5. New source [1] 6. 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. 7. I'm quite sorry 8. 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. SUMMARY Am I being trolled? How does "sample text" prove anything? I'm very confused right now. 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.