args

PRO

• PRO

  And feminism is what makes them look appropriate and...

  Show full argument

  Feminism is no longer beneficial to our modern society

  Thanks Con. I would say it doesn't matter anymore because in our society women don't have it much harder and the work they have to do to achieve a similar amount of materialistic success as men. As of the payment gap, there are a few problems with using that as a source of argument. The minor problem is that the information is rather updated and women gets a paid maternity leave for about a year. The bigger problem is that it is a global data, not fitting with the rules of this debate. These is not factors listed under your sources. Boys are also often exposed to sexual harassment and the only reason men are not is because of natural physical advantage which men are slowly losing. As of birth control and reproductive rights, again, if you read the rules of this debate properly, third world and developing countries are out of the picture and I don't see UK and US having birth control problems right? You didn't define reproductive rights but I think you meant abortion which should totally be banned. Women should, just like men, be held responsible for their actions. Again, as of rape, we see a loophole, we can strengthen law enforcement but allowing abortion is like twisting the whole system to allow rape. Because the men do not have wombs, men don't have to care about abortion and birth control as much as women, but if they do, for some reason, well, they don't have much more rights. As of the second rebuttal, yes, you can say they are not true feminists, but you have to admit that they are indeed sparked by feminism. And feminism is what makes them look appropriate and proportionate to some people. Quotes aren't that powerful, I just used a famous one to support my point because I was running out of time. Do you see any major feminist campaign that 1, doesn't call itself humanist/equalist and 2, provide equal service to both men and women? As of the racism thing, I have a similar view. At first it was great, Martin Luther King did a great job and achieved a lot. But today, if there are still people constantly stressing the fact that blacks don't receive equal treatment which, in some cases is true, I will be solemnly annoyed. The movement was good but if it is pushed any farther, it is a little too much. I apologise for the Japanese example which you seemingly have no experience in (no offense, very few do). However, I can prove that I am right. (I am not going to now. If you want me to, you can tell me to in the comments section, I really am not trying to search for excuses, I simply want to stay on topic). In fact, I will post it in the comments section right afterwards. I think you do have to remember that a lot of feminists still go by the "tell men not to rape" ideology. The program will be perfectly fine IF it is not sexist to create a similar program that is boys only. "Pro has yet to demonstrate that such programs are a result of feminism". Umm... They are not, sort of. The fact is, without feminism, there will be no programs like this. Again, I wonder if you read the definitions and rules of the debate. Just read the definition of feminism... Yes, it is true that the commercial didn't paint it in positive light, but that argument can be used on a lot of things. Can you defend ABC by saying Jimmy Kimmel didn't put killing all Chinese people in positive light? The fact that if the person said sorry it's a girl will cause an outcry proves my point. And you can try to prove me wrong in the comments section. Again, what you said is true but you should have read my definition of modern society which is not correct but we have to settle for for the sake of this debate. Yah, it wasn't very clear, but what I mean is that we need to be able to oppose feminism without sounding like trolls and keyboard warriors. Right now, this isn't entirely feminism's fault but it seems as if it is immoral to oppose feminism and anyone who is doing so is crazy and adsorb. Now that I finished countering your rebuttals, here is another point I would like to introduce. In our modern society, again, referring to my definition, feminists are simply too close minded. It seems as though they will just dismiss anyone who disagrees with their ideology as trolls and I think that is part of the reason it developed men hate. Men are less "proficient" at being "brainwashed" by this ideology while women, generally, become immediately attached to the concept.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-no-longer-beneficial-to-our-modern-society/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.72

    feminism: 18.72

    conclusion: 7.92 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 8.82 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.50)

    sourceText: 1.98 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.12)
• PRO

  The term Capitalism did not exist prior to Marx's...

  Show full argument

  3rd wave feminism has made notable progress for civil rights

  Again, I thank Con for the rebuttal and for taking the time with this debate. I asked Con to participate due to some comments regarding feminism which I believed to be poorly informed. I simply wished for Con to defend their assertions in an organized format. I appreciate Con's willingness to engage on this issue. Rebuttal: "3rd wave feminism didn't cause what you said it caused, it supported what you said it caused, therefore there's not even a reason to explore point A further" Con offers no sources to support this opinion, nor can he point out, using my sources, where this opinion is at all supported. "You didn't support your own claim (again) and now are twisting it into another claim (again) to maintain some form of integrity." Con has already admitted the BOP has been met. That being said, Con still offers no sources or quotations to indicate where I have "twisted" a claim. " Your own source defeats your claims that 3rd Wave had any real hand in Sex Positivism" Con is incorrect, and offers no quotations from the sources to support this opinion. The fact is, Sex Positivity is a tremendous aspect of third wave feminism, which joined together many more defined feminist schools of thought. Gayle Rubin (Rubin, 1984) summarizes the conflict over sex within feminism, between the 2nd and third waves: "...There have been two strains of feminist thought on the subject. One tendency has criticized the restrictions on women's sexual behavior and denounced the high costs imposed on women for being sexually active. This tradition of feminist sexual thought has called for a sexual liberation that would work for women as well as for men. " (1) "Also considered part of the third wave is sex-positivity, a celebration of sexuality as a positive aspect of life, with broader definitions of what sex means and what oppression and empowerment may imply in the context of sex. For example, many third-wave feminists have reconsidered the opposition to pornography and sex work of the second wave, and challenge existing beliefs that participants in pornography and sex work are always being exploited."(2) "This is again a shifting of the same arguments because it's an attempt to push ownership for Sex Positivism by 3rd Wave" Con claims that suggesting Sex Positivity in general influenced third wave feminism nullifies any civil rights advances the movement has created, which is not logical. If we operate under this logic, historians would say the French Revolution had no influence on the American Revolution, because it happened beforehand. They would say Thomas Payne had no hand in creating the structure of our Constitution, despite his tremendous philosophical influence on the authors. If one will look above, they can see that I haven not once claimed that Sex Positivity was a result of Third Wave feminism, only that the progress made toward that objective is owed in great part to the third wave feminism movement which adopted Sex Positive theory and brought it to the public eye. Blogs such as the below, illustrate this fact. "Sex-positivity is quite simple. It holds that there is really no wrong way to do human sexuality as long as all parties involved give their consent. The sex-positive movement is closely intertwined with (third wave) feminism because the oppression of sexualities which fall outside the normative (white, monogamous, and heterosexual) is a major tool of the patriarchy. "(3) "straight red herring." Not at all. Con suggests that a movement or designation can only exist once the terminology has been set in stone. The term Capitalism did not exist prior to Marx's writings, therefore, Con must believe America is not a Capitalist nation. Sex positive theory was codified into the greater Third Wave Feminist movement once that terminology was established, just as America became a "capitalist" nation when Marx coined the term. This is another example of the theory pre-dating the terminology. "Furthermore Pro starts off by attempting to assert that the Third Wave existed before the Third Wave " Just as Capitalism existed before "Capitalism". This is a simple correlation to make. "which is not equivalent to saying "Not All 2nd Wave agreed on matter X" which is just intellectually dishonest and a means to inject one's vantage point into any time period or situation." Con offers no sources to support the assumption that Third Wave feminism formed spontaneously, rather than transformed over time from positions which were not accepted by the mainstream 2nd wave. Con claims my argument uses the "Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent", because I assert that the theories which formed Third Wave Feminism had an impact on civil rights. Con claims this by misdefining the term: "If X supports concept A and A is a core of group B and then X is a member of group B." Con's example above is not the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. The actual fallacy is represented as "If A results in B, and B is present, that must mean A was the cause." EX. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich. (the true statement) Bill Gates is rich. (the true variable) Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox. (the fallacy) Let's attribute this to Con's example: If a person pre-90's identified as a Feminist but supported Sex Positivism (the true statement) then they were actually a 3rd Wave Feminist. - (The true variable) *****Missing (The Fallacy) Con is missing the last half of the "fallacy", because they have misattributed it. (4) It would have been better represented as: If a Pre-90's person is Sex Positive, he/she is a Third wave feminist. (the true statement) So and so is a Third Wave Feminist. (The true variable) Therefore so and so is Sex Positive. (the fallacy) Not all third wave feminists are Sex Positive, but all Sex Positive people are Third Wave Feminists, at least in that regard (obviously not on every subject), whether they are aware or not. Just as America was a "Capitalist" nation, even before the term was coined. "Pro stated that third-wave feminism, in their opening, had a direct impact on the GBLTQ, specifically the T, and failed to prove it which was shown through yet another chronological error." Again, Con offers no sources or citations to support this statement, save for their own opinion. "Trans feminism"that is, transgender perspectives on feminism, or feminist perspectives on transgender issues"is one of many so-called "third-wave" feminisms. Its origins are closely linked with other feminist submovements"specifically, sex-positive feminism, postmodern/poststructuralist feminism, queer theory and intersectionality."(5) "3rd wave again absorbed rather than directly effected T" 1. In no way has anyone suggest trans feminism was influenced by the third wave. It influenced the creation of and was incorporated into the Third Wave, much like the Sex Positive movement. 2. This does not demonstrate that Third Wave trans feminists have not had a notable impact on civil rights. It can be seen that Trans feminism is a facet of the third wave, and as we have already established, Trans feminism has had a notable impact on civil rights. The wider discourse in academia is proof of that. (6)(7) Con again attempts to claim that a movement cannot be considered a movement until the terminology is created. This is the same flawed argument Con has based their entire rebuttal on. It has already been shown to be flawed. ACHIEVEMENTS: "not sufficient to prove any form of furthering or ownership by 3rd wave." Untrue. furthering - "(millennials) in general have a broader sexual repertoire, and are more likely to be satisfied with our sex lives than older people. We're less judgmental of kink, and less likely to stigmatize around sex." (8) "Ownership", again, has no place in social movements. MLK does not "own" pacifism, yet it was a tremendous boon to his contributions to civil rights movement. Con again admits the BOP has been met. Con states my claims are false, yet cannot demonstrate how. Con claims my sources are "terrible", yet cannot provide original sources to refute or disprove them. Con has shown poor conduct throughout the debate. Please vote Pro! SOURCES: 1. http://books.google.com...'s%20sexual&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false 2. Johnson, Merri Lisa, ed. (2002). Jane Sexes It Up: True Confessions of Feminist Desire. New York 3. http://thefeministanthropologist.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://www.temple.edu... 7. http://powderroom.jezebel.com... 8. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/3rd-wave-feminism-has-made-notable-progress-for-civil-rights/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.71

    feminism: 18.71

    conclusion: 6.55 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 10.16 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.72)

    sourceText: 2.00 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.14)
• PRO

  If you do not have the means to take care of a child you...

  Show full argument

  Modern Feminism Is Pointless

  Oh, I almost forgot about abortion!!!! Why should women have the right to take away the God-given right of an unborn child TO LIVE. That should not be up to them with the exception of rape and rape ALONE. Fighting for a right to take away a child's right to live is despicable. Especially when it is not because of rape. YOU SCREWED UP YOU TAKE CARE OF IT!!! It's called protection and it is not expensive to get. If you do not have the means to take care of a child you should of thought of that BEFORE you had unprotected sex. There is also such as thing as ADOPTION. When you are first pulled over by a police officer chances are you are only getting a warning. The police officer is willing to give you a chance, and that unborn child should at least have a chance. This one of the biggest problems with Feminism is that it encourages women to not be responsible for their own actions. All feminists are trying to propagate a victim's complex and that is what is convincing people that they actually are victims when they are not. I try to stay out of homosexuality and transgender issues so I am not going to address that. To Viewers and Voters: So to sum this debate up the only thing my opponent has done throughout this entire debate is presented pro-feminist ideals and opinions which do not prove anything. Saying that a movement stands for something does not mean they are actually making a legitimate effort to accomplish their goals. I have presented enough facts and examples to clearly show that even though the feminist movement has some good intentions they show no effort to own up to what they want to achieve, but continue to insist that their problems are more important than others' and always try to show a victim's mentality in the face of an unfavorable outcome. I am not saying there are not injustices against women, but there are not as many as feminists claim there are. Women have the same rights as men according to national law and the constitution of the U.S. The judicial system is fair and will help women if they are suffering injustice if you will let them. It is not necessary to demand a national protest anytime a woman is wronged. Prove the stereotypes wrong, earn respect as individuals rather than as a group, have respect for the legislative and judicial process, and think about how you are affecting others as well as yourself. If you will just realize that this is the real way to win respect for women and that demanding respect and unreasonable privileges and rights is doing more harm than good. That is real If you do not have the means to take care of a child you should of thought of that BEFORE you had unprotected sex. There is also such as thing as ADOPTION. When you are first pulled over by a police officer chances are you are only getting a warning. The police officer is willing to give you a chance, and that unborn child should at least have a chance. This one of the biggest problems with Feminism is that it encourages women to not be responsible for their own actions. All feminists are trying to propagate a victim's complex and that is what is convincing people that they actually are victims when they are not. I try to stay out of homosexuality and transgender issues so I am not going to address that. To Viewers and Voters: So to sum this debate up the only thing my opponent has done throughout this entire debate is presented pro-feminist ideals and opinions which do not prove anything. Saying that a movement stands for something does not mean they are actually making a legitimate effort to accomplish their goals. I have presented enough facts and examples to clearly show that even though the feminist movement has some good intentions they show no effort to own up to what they want to achieve, but continue to insist that their problems are more important than others' and always try to show a victim's mentality in the face of an unfavorable outcome. I am not saying there are not injustices against women, but there are not as many as feminists claim there are. Women have the same rights as men according to national law and the constitution of the U.S. The judicial system is fair and will help women if they are suffering injustice if you will let them. It is not necessary to demand a national protest anytime a woman is wronged. Prove the stereotypes wrong, earn respect as individuals rather than as a group, have respect for the legislative and judicial process, and think about how you are affecting others as well as yourself. If you will just realize that this is the real way to win respect for women and that demanding respect and unreasonable privileges and rights is doing more harm than good. That is real feminism and that should be what this movement should be about.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Modern-Feminism-Is-Pointless/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.71

    feminism: 18.71

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 6.78 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.15)

    sourceText: 1.92 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.05)
• PRO

  1: They never talk about men's problems (How divorce...

  Show full argument

  Feminism Is Hypocritical and Sexist Against Men

  I believe feminism is hypocritical and sexist. 1: They never talk about men's problems (How divorce cases always favor women, and men are fucked emotionally and financially; or how women can hit men and get away with it; or how women get about half the sentence a man would get for the exact same crime.) 2: They blame men for EVERYTHING! (Feminist "All men are Rapist and men can't be raped" 3: They make up false statistics. (Women make 75-78 cents for the exact same work or 1 in 5 women are raped) 3.5: If you prove that they are wrong you're a misogynistic, woman hating, douche.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-Is-Hypocritical-and-Sexist-Against-Men/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.70

    feminism: 18.70

    conclusion: 9.07 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.01)

    premises: 7.71 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.31)

    sourceText: 1.91 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.04)
• PRO

  All they did was to list major trademarks such as the UN...

  Show full argument

  Feminism is necessary in modern First World countries.

  I accept, Thanks for having me. Statistics show overwhelming support for differences in wage gap Con's line of argument is that if it is illegal to impose a wage gap, it is sufficient to conclude that the wage gap doesn't exist. The problem with this argument is that riling a case from a legal perspective doesn't measure social realities in the world. The Chartered Management Institute survey(1.http://news.sky.com...) shows that there is a pay difference of approximately £9,000 , equivalent to 23% in wage gape differences. Con did not provide a study measuring wage gap whatsoever other than to prove that it is illegal which is irrelevant because of the prevailing social realities that plague society. It should also be noted that the CMI survey has over 68,000 managers across the UK which is suffice to say that it is representative. Hence, the difference in wage gap still exists and this gives feminism the reason for its existence. Furthermore, Con added a stereotypical source listing top 5 feminist myths that is essentially a straw mans fallacy. The source listed supposedly feminist arguments such as 'one in five college women will be sexually assaulted' without providing a valid source for its original quote. Not only that, the line of rebuttals is even worse as the website never provided any studies. All they did was to list major trademarks such as the UN and Oxford Uni in hopes that someone believes it out of authority. That is just plain guilty of the appeal to authority fallacy. The case is so weak that it cannot even be logically coherent, never mind actually making a real study. The difference between being misandry and feminism. There a clear differences between misandry and feminism. If we were to divide the world in terms of gender issues, there are female issues, male issues as well as non binary issues. Feminism intents to defend all 3 premises because its official aim is gender equity. Con's case is that simply because some women are misandrous, it is enough to conclude that they are representative of feminist movements. Even Con's [3]rd Source did not even imply that it is a product of feminism. What Con essentially doing is to misinterpret the evidence to suit the theory, which is clearly a mumbo jumbo non-existing concept. Domestic Responsibilities Con argues that just because there are improvements to women's rights, it is suffice to say that feminists are merely exaggerating the inequality. Con is both wrong and wrong. The Global Gender Gap Report (2.http://www.weforum.org...) shows gradual improvements in women's rights over economic cooperation, health and survival rates with education being equal in some 20 countries out of the rest. There are improvements overall, however, inequalities still persists. On Economic Cooperation, gender equality currently stands at 60%(2) with the other 40% unequal. Feminism represents those that are still clocked under 40%. Without them, there is essentially a lack of incentive to improve equality. Inequalities persist under general figure and it also persists under hidden figures. The Global Gender Gap also fails to credit other fields of work such as domestic responsibilities. Women are largely responsible for the huge chunk of domestic chores despite working full time similar to men (3.http://news.uci.edu...). Researchers also found that, despite women achieving full breadwinner role(the sole economic provider), women are still primarily responsible for housework(4.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...). There are clear masked inequalities which must not be ignored in society. These figures were hidden under the main Global Gender Gap statistic due to its simplistic measure. Moreover, in the survey containing 1,800 people(4), 85% of women were responsible for just doing the laundry and 2/3 of them did tasks such as cleaning,cooking, looking after sick relatives. The only field in which men took significant responsibility is repairing and mending faulty item. There are clear inequalities being presented both in major government statistics and target studies. Since both type of studies complements each other for quantitative and qualitive means, it is reasonable to generalise that inequality is still prevalent. The claim that feminists are exaggerating inequality is negated. The resolution is affirmed. Feminism is needed to represent those under oppression.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-necessary-in-modern-First-World-countries./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.67

    feminism: 18.67

    conclusion: 7.92 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 8.82 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.50)

    sourceText: 1.93 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.06)
• PRO

  Now, to Bronze Age texts: it may well be that those...

  Show full argument

  The feminism movement should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts

  Is Feminism a worthy cause? I believe so - having gender equality (to the greatest extent possible) seems to me both the morally correct ideal and the practically sensible way for a society to organise itself; it seems to me that this ideal is worthy both in the poorest and the richest nations. Now, to Bronze Age texts: it may well be that those Bronze Age texts we have were the very pinnacle of Bronze Age philosophy; I certainly do not suggest that we should ignore wisdom from bygone ages. On the other hand, lots of things were very different, socially and technologically all those years ago; one of the key differences, socially speaking, was the lot of women: women were seen as chattel and, to a degree, as mere incubators for their male owners. I merely suggest that we shouldn't allow moral questions today to be settled simply by recourse to blindly following the advice of people from over 3,000 years ago! Feminism, as a movement, is by no means above scrutiny; but then, neither should ancient writings be! Indeed, the vast majority of Christians do not take the bible to be literally true in all cases; I don't think that most Christians allow biblical writings to unduly influence their thinking today. However, it seems to me that some Christians (and Jews and Muslims) allow these ancient texts to inform their moral thinking directly and literally; this seems potentially dangerous to me! I would certainly have found it interesting had Con provided any solid case that showed why Bronze Age writings were relevant today and, specifically, in contradiction to the Now, to Bronze Age texts: it may well be that those Bronze Age texts we have were the very pinnacle of Bronze Age philosophy; I certainly do not suggest that we should ignore wisdom from bygone ages. On the other hand, lots of things were very different, socially and technologically all those years ago; one of the key differences, socially speaking, was the lot of women: women were seen as chattel and, to a degree, as mere incubators for their male owners. I merely suggest that we shouldn't allow moral questions today to be settled simply by recourse to blindly following the advice of people from over 3,000 years ago! Feminism, as a movement, is by no means above scrutiny; but then, neither should ancient writings be! Indeed, the vast majority of Christians do not take the bible to be literally true in all cases; I don't think that most Christians allow biblical writings to unduly influence their thinking today. However, it seems to me that some Christians (and Jews and Muslims) allow these ancient texts to inform their moral thinking directly and literally; this seems potentially dangerous to me! I would certainly have found it interesting had Con provided any solid case that showed why Bronze Age writings were relevant today and, specifically, in contradiction to the feminism movement; I would have been happy to fight any individual case provided along these lines - however, apart from a very loose case suggesting that abortion should be banned based on ancient writings (a case that my opponent did not, in my opinion, make a very strong argument for), Con has singularly failed to provide such debate.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-feminism-movement-should-not-be-impeded-by-Bronze-Age-texts/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.60

    feminism: 18.60

    conclusion: 7.92 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 8.71 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.48)

    sourceText: 1.98 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.11)
• PRO

  Accessed February 25, 2014, http://www.usccr.gov.... 9...

  Show full argument

  On balance, Feminism is not needed in the US anymore.

  "My opponent doesn't understand why I involved other countries. Again, the resolution leaves room for other countries. If he were to say not needed *strictly* in the U.S, then I would have argued merely the U.S." I specifically said the US. Did I leave it broad, and say Feminism in the world. You really provide no examples, and just base your reasoning off of your opinion without facts on the resolution. C. 1: Sex and Violence "In order for my opponent to have accurately rebutted my case, he must have shown that human trafficking no longer exists, which he didn't prove. In fact, human trafficking does exist." Well, you should have accurately read the case. I specifically stated "The source you list first of all list for this evidence is a blog made in 2010. The year is 2016 which means 6 years have gone by since this has happened. The Washington Post article you also sourced was an opinion article with no evidence to back it up. Between 14,500 and 17,500 people are trafficked into the U.S. each year. https://www.dosomething.org...; Con's source is from 2010. My source is from 2014. Here are the sources that prove that 50,000 is a false number in the current times. 7 California Against Slavery. "What is Human Trafficking?." Safer California Foundation. Accessed February 25, 2014, http://www.caseact.org.... 8 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "Human Trafficking in Texas." Texas Advisory Committee . Accessed February 25, 2014, http://www.usccr.gov.... 9 Bales, Kevin. "The Number." The CNN Freedom Project Ending Modern Day Slavery. Accessed February 25, 2014, http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com.... Obviously, the number has declined drastically. California and Las Vegas are the most popular states in the U.S for human trafficking. "The United States is one of the top three destination points for trafficked victims and California, New York, Texas and Nevada are the top destination states within the country." First of all, this statistic also applies to children. The resolution only applies to women. Con puts statistics about children that do not apply to this resolution. If this were policy debate, I would put a topicality violation. Human trafficking has nothing to with feminism. If I may remind a radical feminist of what feminism actually means. Feminism-Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women. It only states women. It does not state children. Woman-an adult human female. Oxford Dictionaries If Con tries to prove that 80% of these children are females, than Con still proves nothing. Female is specifically an adult female, not a child. These are just a few arguments about bringing up children in this debate. These arguments should be deemed irrelevant. I feel like my opponent does not know what she is talking about, and confuses human trafficking with all sorts of topics. C2. "Males are far more likely to chose dangerous careers"" "Where is the evidence?" I don't get why you are failing at reading my case. I already stated "Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more. In the top ten most dangerous jobs(from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics)". "Males are far more likely to work in higher paying jobs" "Not true because I successfully argued that men and women who have the same exact job, and same degree, women still earn less, making your accusation false." You should recall the evidence in your case where you state this, because I do not see anywhere in your case where you argued this "successfully". ."Males are for more likely to work in higher paying jobs-According to the White House Report, 7% of female professionals were employed in high paying computer fields, while 38% of males have gotten professional jobs." Here is the evidence I stated in my case. "Men work longer hours than women" "Not true. If it is true, you doesn't provide any evidence. A study in 2013 reported that women and men work equal amount of hours. [3] Here in the U.S., men and women work a nearly equal number of hours, about 50 per week. But once again, women take much more of the household burden. They average 33 hours a week at jobs, and more than 17 hours working around the house." First of all, Con does not provided a citation on where this evidence comes from. I tried copying and pasting this into google, and I honestly got nothing. The study should have pulled up in seconds. It did not. I provide clear evidence that states the opposite, and has facts. Men work longer hours than women-Men work 6 hours per week, or 15percent longer than the average fulltime working women. http://www.cbsnews.com... I have provided a lot of evidence for all of my claims. All claims on the fact that I did not provide evidence are false. You should have noticed that all of those claims go directly back to round 2. "This is merely fluff writing." This is the response from all the governors listed in round 2. This attack has no strength behind it, and is very close to a cop out. Dropped Arguments: I am sorry, but I have to specifically break this resolution down in order to prove why my opponent's arguments are weak. On balance, Feminism is not needed in the US anymore. Balance- condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions: Feminism-Definition my opponent has given needed-1.require (something) because very important US=United States of America Oxford Dictionaries The debate has to do with BALANCE and NEED. These arguments my opponent has dropped. Con has dropped the arguments where I argue that all the statistics are less than 1% of the 125 million women that live in America. That is not balance. If 51% of American women were raped, than Con would clearly win this debate. She does not acknowledge this at all. Here are the actual statistics: 182,000 women = 0.146% of the women in America. 1 million women=0.8% This debate is about balance. I think these numbers speak for it selves. If 182,000 women are being raped, than that means that 124,818,000 women are not being raped. If 1 million women are being raped, than that means that 124 million women are not being raped. These are simple facts that my opponent cannot deny is true. The majority of women are not being subjected to human trafficking. My female opponent is not subjected to this trafficking. This is why Pro clearly wins this debate.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/On-balance-Feminism-is-not-needed-in-the-US-anymore./2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.57

    feminism: 18.57

    conclusion: 9.07 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.01)

    premises: 7.58 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.28)

    sourceText: 1.92 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.05)
• PRO

  Thus, biological aspects play a role, but do not solely...

  Show full argument

  Feminism is necessary in modern day United States.

  So, I would first like to note, that my opponent does not disagree with my overarching observation, that gender inequality makes feminism necessary, so this debate now boils down to whether there is sufficient inequality in America. Thus, if I can prove there exists sufficient inequality in any of the three grounds, (social, political, economic) I have effectively won the debate, now, I will defend my points and continue to attack my opponents points. Point 1) On the question of the wage gap, my opponent attributes this difference in wages to the fact that men biologically are more likely to take STEM jobs that are high paying. She states that women shouldn"t be pressured into STEM jobs, they need to be encouraged to do what they love. This fact is well and good, but it is not the only reason that women are being paid less. From RISMedia, there are three reasons why women are paid less than men, only one of which is the fact that women gravitate towards lower paying jobs. My opponent ignores two critical reasons. 1) Women ask for less money. RIS states that according to a study published by HIRED, women ask for lower salaries then men, and leave the table with less money. Also, women ask for an average $14,000 less in compensation than men overall nationwide. This fact needs to be remedied. This has nothing to do with job interests and what women love to do, women generally are too timid and need to learn to be more confident in their skills when searching for employment. Thus women should be empowered to ask for more when they search for jobs, hence warranting feminist movements. 2) Discrimination against women is present in the workplace. RIS states that research shows that many women with same credentials who work in the same exact jobs as men earn less. Furthermore, women who chose to work in high paying jobs, previously dominated by men, such as biologists and designers, had their compensation in those jobs declined. In order to ensure an equal and just America, we need to get rid of workplace discrimination, feminism is a means to that end. Furthermore, in response to my point one, my opponent quotes that the pregnancy leave causes women to be paid less. The statistic that I used to justify my claim of the wage gap stated that women"s wages are 79% of men"s average wages. Thus my statistic doesn"t even take maternity leave into consideration because my statistic deals with wages not pay per se. Point 2) Attacking my point 2, my opponent states that it is the people that choose to vote for men, not women for office, but she fails to consider the following. From School of Public Affairs (SPA), reasons there are less women in office than men include: 1)Women are less likely than men to think they are qualified to run for office. SPA states that a 2001 study shows that men are 60% more likely than women to assess themselves as "very qualified" to run for office. Furthermore, (from SPA) the gender gap does not stem from gender differences in direct political experiences, or exposure to and familiarity with, the political arena. Thus, this gender differential in confidence is arbitrary. Feminism is necessary to empower women into being more confident. 2)Women are less likely than men to receive the suggestion to run for office. SPA states that in a study, a less percentage of women than men have received the suggestion to run for office. The study even breaks the results into separate categories and women are shown to be lower in EVERY category. Thus, feminism is necessary to empower women into believing that they should run for office. Point 3) My opponent attributes gender roles to biological differences but that is not entirely the case. University of Notre Dame states that gender theorists point to the variations in gender roles observed among different cultures in arguing that gender " our masculinity or femininity " is a social construct rather than an innate biological characteristic. Thus, biological aspects play a role, but do not solely make up gender roles. Furthermore, the problem with gender roles is not that it itself is inherently unjust. It leads to discrimination. I am not advocating abolishing gender roles because as my opponent pointed out, it will always exist. I think that feminism is need to spread the message that it is ok to break those gender roles. Many women feel constrained by their gender expectations, which is something feminism can aim to fix. I"ll move on to attack my opponent"s arguments. She states that feminism has become useless, and as a result, feminists are making stuff up to attack and many are attacking men. I completely agree with the fact that THOSE feminists are unnecessary and are not doing much to further the cause of true gender equality in America. But, notice in those arguments she herself even admits that the statistic for how many feminists actually do this is impossible to obtain. Thus, the actual number of feminists that are "useless" can be as low as 1% for all we know. Since she does not offer any evidence on the amount of feminists that are useless and disrespectful, one cannot take those specific feminists that she pointed out and generalize them as the face of the ENTIRETY of feminism. She also states that claim that we see this more and more often and it will only get worse, but NOWHERE does she justify this claim with any evidence. My opponents argues that relative to other countries, America is already pretty ahead in terms of gender equality, so feminism isn"t necessary. But, as a more developed country this is a given, because we are much more developed then Africa, we SHOULD be more gender equal. What is shocking, is that we have less percentage of females in government than some of those countries, which is the point that I am making. Furthermore, we are not even debating whether feminism is necessary in Africa, only in America, I am just using Africa as a basis of comparison. We shouldn"t be setting our standards as low as African countries, which is why it is shocking that some of those countries have more females in government as us.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-necessary-in-modern-day-United-States./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.50

    feminism: 18.50

    conclusion: 7.92 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 8.66 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.47)

    sourceText: 1.92 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.05)
• PRO

  I hope you don't mind that I'm imitating your format for...

  Show full argument

  Feminism Is Needed in America Today

  In response to con, I will individually go through each of the points they presented, and post my rebuttal for each one. I hope you don't mind that I'm imitating your format for citing sources; I'm new on this site and I like your way of presenting data. Definition: To say that feminism today is the belief that men are inferior to women is simply untrue. Radical feminists, on the other hand, often do believe that society should be matriarchal, rather than equal, and it is very important to make a distinction between the two. It is these radical individuals whose arguments are often believed to be the cornerstones of feminist ideology, when, in reality, that is not what feminism means. I have seen numerous posts by radical feminists who believe that men should die or be subjected to the same sexism women have been subjected to, but, as a feminist, I do not agree with their viewpoints and believe them to be counterproductive. Only 17% of Americans self-identify as strong feminist, while 43% self-identify as feminist, meaning that radicals do not make up the majority of the feminist movement, and therefore most do not believe that men are inferior to women (1). Regarding the wage gap - firstly, con's sources are both outdated and contradictory. Their first source, from which they received the top 5 occupations for women, is from 2010. Furthermore, con took their information for the top 5 occupations for men from a different source than the first, a source from 2007. The top 5 occupations for women, according to that list, are dental hygienists, preschool and kindergarten teachers, secretaries, dental assistants, and speech-language pathologists. Because con presented two sources that are both outdated and also contradict each other, I think that it would be safe to discredit both sources. The actual 5 most common occupations for women, according to a more recent 2015 annual survey, are elementary and middle school teachers, nurses, secretaries, health aides, and customer service representatives, and the top 5 occupations for men are drivers and sales workers, managers, retail supervisors, laborers and movers, and retail salesmen (2). This information contradicts con's genetics argument, because only one of the top 5 occupations for men requires manual labor, meaning that the reason that men often have higher-paying jobs is not due to genetics. If there were more women who were drivers, managers, and supervisors, the wage gap would be greatly diminished, and so far, con has not provided any reason that women should not have these jobs. I think that the real reason for the wage gap, rather than genetics, lies in the sexist idea of what a 'woman's job' should be. For instance, there is a gender gap in STEM fields which cannot be accounted for by the fact that men have greater upper body strength than women. Only 14.8% of engineers in the workplace are women, according to a 2016 article (3). As of 2017, women make up only 19.6% of the US Congress, 21% of the Senate, and 19.3% of the House of Representatives (4). Women make up a dismal 4.8% of CEOs in America's top 500 corporations according to a 2017 list (5). None of these jobs require manual labor. The idea of 'normal women choices' for occupations, as con put it, simply needs to be abolished. The idea that women are nurses, secretaries, and teachers needs to be removed from society in order for women to realize that higher-paying jobs are available to them, and in order for male employers to remove any prejudices they may hold when considering who to hire. The fact that men dominate higher-paying occupations is reason enough to be concerned about the wage gap, especially when genetics cannot factor into the equation. When looking at statistics that show that men have higher-paying jobs, you are looking at the reason feminism is necessary in America today: the disadvantage women have in the workplace due to preconceived notions of what is normal for them. Now, I will respond to con's rebuttal. I will start with "You try being a woman in these countries, I dare you": Of course it is far more dangerous to be a woman in countries like Somalia and Afghanistan. America is an incredible place to live, especially for women, and most citizens are grateful for the freedoms and protections they are afforded in this country. However, it is illogical to dismiss a wrong by pointing out an even greater wrong happening somewhere else. Should law enforcement only stop crime in cities with the worst crime rates, and ignore everywhere else? Just as law enforcement should be concerned with all crime, feminism should be concerned with any and all instances of misogyny, whether it be rape apology in America or widespread, normalized violence against women in third-world countries. Simply because worse examples of misogyny exist does not mean that lesser examples should be dismissed out of hand. As for con's rebuttal of my point about rape, I do not see why it should not matter that women are far more likely to be rape victims than men. If roughly 90% of adult rape victims are women, there is likely a reason for that. If only, say, 52% of adult victims were female, I would understand why it would be nonsensical to think that the underlying cause is misogyny and the objectification of women, but that is simply not the case. I am focusing on why females are rape victims instead of males because, quite simply, women are raped far more often than men. According to a 2011 study, the most recent I could find, 98.1% of rapes against women were committed by men (5). I refuse to believe that there is no reason for this. In order to stop rape in general, it is necessary to understand who the victims are, who the perpetrators are, and why the perpetrators believe their actions are acceptable. In most cases, the victims are women, the perpetrators are male, and the reason for the perpetrators actions is misogyny and their view of women as objects. That is why feminism needs to exist today; not to deny the existence of male rape victims, not to deny the existence of female rapists, but to help Americans understand why women are so often rape victims and how to stop it. Finally, con used the typical 'not all men' argument that most anti-feminists use, verbatim. This argument is completely nonsensical and asks women to ignore misogyny because not every man is misogynistic. Since it is difficult to provide statistical evidence for something as conceptual as misogyny, I will use anecdotal evidence here. For every man I have met who is respectful and treats the women around him equally, I have met another man who is condescending or even blatantly sexist to the women around him. I have met men who completely dismiss the dissenting opinion of women who argue with them, men who believe women should not be allowed to vote, and men who lash out angrily at women without considering the consequences for their actions, all of whom believe that they aren't sexist in the slightest. Even if men do not blatantly believe themselves to be superior to women, sexism in America is, for the most part, deeply ingrained in a person's behavior, rather than being a belief that they have chosen for themselves. Just because women have equal rights on paper does not mean that they are treated equally in society, nor does it mean that sexism is not present in the workforce or in politics. 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com... 2: https://www.dol.gov... 3: http://alltogether.swe.org... 4: http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu... 5: http://www.oneinfourusa.org...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-Is-Needed-in-America-Today/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.47

    feminism: 18.47

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 6.50 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.10)

    sourceText: 1.95 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.09)
• PRO

  I am not against gender equality, I am against modern day...

  Show full argument

  2nd wave and 3rd wave/modern feminism is harmful and should not exist.

  I challenged my opponent, because they challenged me to a flawed resolution. I am not against gender equality, I am against modern day I am not against gender equality, I am against modern day feminism and 2nd wave feminism (about 1960's-70's). This round will not be for acceptance. 2nd round opening arguments. 3rd round is new arguments/rebuttals (both,or one). 4th round is for rebuttals. 5th round is for rebuttals and closing statements.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/2nd-wave-and-3rd-wave-modern-feminism-is-harmful-and-should-not-exist./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.46

    feminism: 18.46

    conclusion: 6.55 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 10.01 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.70)

    sourceText: 1.91 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.04)