Pro vs. con view
1031 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Before starting, I would like to thank my opponent for...

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

    Before starting, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I will be arguing that On Balance, Feminism is not needed in the US anymore. I will provide examples on how the USA has surpassed the everybody in women rights, and how there are numerous examples of equality today. Note(100 years ago, people would not dare say women always beat men in arguments. Now, it is a general fact.) Terms: Balance- condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions(In this case, America does have discrimination, but I will be arguing that the equality outweighs the inequality.) Needed-1.require (something) because it is essential or very important: Powered by Oxford Dictionaries 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. Source-My opponent We will examine each quality that is essential to equality for women in this debate. Political Equality-First of all, women have a say in America. http://www.archives.gov... It clearly states that the United States of America cannot discriminate against a voter because of their sex. Now, I shall note how many female Governors there have been. A governor is a huge position of power in the United States of America. This should not be taken lightly. Female Governors: Gina Raimondo-Rhode Island Kate Brown-Oregon Maggie Hasson-New Hampshire Mary Fallin-Oklahoma Nikki Haley-South Carolina Susana Martinez-New Mexico Nellie Tayloe Ross-Wyoming Miriam A. Ferguson-Texas Lurleen Wallace-Alabama Ella T. Grasso-Coonecticut Dixy Lee Ray-Washington Vesta M. Roy-New Hampshire Martha Layne Collins-Kentucky Madeleine M. Kunin-Vermont Kay A. Orr-Nebraska Rose Perica Mofford-Arizonaasas Joan Finney-Kansas Ann Richards-Texas Barbara Roberts-Oregon Christine Todd Whitman-New Jersey Jane Dee Hull-Arizona Nancy P- Hollister-Ohio Jane Swift-Massachusetts Judy Martz-Montana Ruth Ann Minner-Delaware Linda Lingle-Hawaii Olene Walker-Utah Jennifer Graholm-Michigan Janet Napolitano-Arizona Kathleen Sebelius-Kansas Kathleen Blanco-Lousiana M. Jodi REll-Connecticut Christine Gregoire-Washington Sarah Palin-Alaska Beverly Purdue-North Carolina Jan Brewer-Arizona https://en.wikipedia.org... Before, I move on to the next argument, I want to stress that this is a very significant point. A governor is a very powerful position that many sexists 100 years ago would probably never think a woman would never hold. The idea that this has happened means that women have achieved political equality. Women are able to hold political offices, and benefit the rights of women as a result. Not only is this important in the local level, but also in the senate. There are 20 female senators which also serves a very powerful instrument for women rights. Economic Equality- I have heard the same tired argument from feminists claiming that women get paid less than men. I hope in this debate, I can at least clarify once and fore all that this is a myth. 1. 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), they are all male dominated jobs. As a result males will get paid more. 2. 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. Females are also most likely to be in low-paying education and health care jobs. 3.Men work longer hours than women-Men work 6 hours per week, or 15percent longer than the average fulltime working women. 4. Men are more likely to pursue high-stress and higher-paid areas. 5. "Women business owners make less than half of what male business owners make, which, since they have no boss, means it's independent of discrimination. The reason for the disparity, according to a Rochester Institute of Technology study, is that money is the primary motivator for 76% of men versus only 29% of women. Women place a higher premium on shorter work weeks, proximity to home, fulfillment, autonomy, and safety, according to Nemko" http://www.cbsnews.com... I believe that I have gave solid cases on political equality and economic equality, but there is still cultural and social equality. The arguments that I will be making the next portion of this case is purely analytical. It would be laughable to leave a source, because I am expecting anyone with a life would know of this. Cultural and Social Equality: We expect that equality is realistic, and can happen. We saw this with the Civil Rights Movement, but there are still movements like Black Lives Matter. Why can't the common man just stop holding grudges against other races and the opposite gender of himself? Most people(Fox News) assume that racism is a thing of the past, while others think that there needs to be a radical movement(Internet) to cement equality into everyone's minds. I offer an alternative answer(not solution) to this problem which involves empirical evidence that most people have seen with there own eyes. We have all seen the kid that wears glasses. Some of us have seen that kid bullied in public schools, or others have seen him geek out in front of your own eyes. Either way, people have a general assumption about people that wear glasses. You must be either smart, weird, bullied, or innocent. I am assuming that people usually have this assumption. When one is an adult, they will probably think more on the lines of smart. Either way, these are assumptions about what kind of personality people with glasses have. Now, just imagine if that kid was an athletic superstar who was destined to go to the NFL. This could be probable, but highly unlikely. I will equate this to feminism. People have general assumptions about what each individual is just by taking one look. We have all done it, and it is nothing to be ashamed of. But, feminists think it is wrong, because no-one should have the assumption that a female is inferior. They should have the assumption that they are equal to us males. Well, here is the problem with that. You are never going to change someone's subconscious thinking. But, you can change what someone thinks consciously. That is why the war on women rights has been won. Social rules apply to people. At colleges where Political Correctness is reality, no one will dare say anything racist, because they know of the humiliating consequences of saying something like that. But, a PC person could just as easily look at a Chinese guy, and ask for help on his homework. The PC person did not ask anyone else, because in his experience Chinese people are usually really smart. Feminism has been successful in creating a world where is socially unacceptable to call a gender inferior. In a professional life, nobody would say do not hire her because that gender is inferior. Females are never going to hear that in there professional lives. The backlash is also very humiliating if someone ever says(discount Donald Trump) anything that hints at saying females are inferior. If a politician accidently says that, his carrier is done for. It is because of the circumstances, Americans are in that prohibits us from saying mean racist and sexist things. Here are the three reasons why this is the case. 1. Consequences of saying something like this is humiliating. 2. Females usually dominate the Teacher field making children have sub-conscious thoughts of female intelligence. 3. There are movies and TV shows dedicated to making one feel guilty about judging women. But, you cannot stop what humans think sub-consciously. http://www.theguardian.com... A good source for this is actually a study conducted about what happens in the subconscious part of your mind. "Researchers engineered a situation in which female participants heard a male experimenter make a sexist remark; some were then given the opportunity to call him out on it. Eric Horowitz explains the scenario:In each experiment, female participants first rated their beliefs about the importance of confronting prejudice and then engaged in a "Deserted Island" task with a confederate. The task involved selecting from an existing set of people those who would be most helpful on a deserted island. The confederate " chose all males until his final selection, when he justified his choice of a female with a sexist remark ("She"s pretty hot. I think we need more women on the island to keep the men satisfied.")Those who had the chance to challenge this remark, but didn't do so, rated the experimenter as less sexist " and challenging sexism as less important " than the others. Which would seem to be a case of cognitive dissonance in action: when you're confronted by prejudice and you don't object to it, your own attitudes shift in a more prejudiced direction, to maintain consistency between your behaviour and your beliefs." This gives you clear evidence of how my viewpoint is empirically proven. If Con is still dissatisfied, I will give more clear evidence and examples in the next round. That is why I affirm that Feminism is not needed anymore. Feminism has already solved the economic and political problems in America. I have proven that there is nothing to do when it comes to social and cultural equality. We have already created social rules that regulate what we say and our conscious thinking. We do not however control subconscious thinking. Thank you again to my opponent for accepting this debate.

  • PRO

    Rebuttals The literal definition of feminism is tainted...

    Feminism fights to harm men.

    I have given ample amounts of evidence to show feminism fights to harm men. New arguments The next time you switch on the television, count how many programs have the token "stupid boyfriend" or "abusive husband" or "pedophilic father" figure. Switch over to a children"s channel / time window and watch how many cartoons or programs reflect "silly daddy" characters or "bullying big brother". Don"t forget, of course, nearly all the women in these same programs will be smart, sexy, sassy and full of beans, capable of juggling a career lifestyle with children, a husband and a social circle " let"s not forget that she"s undoubtedly a wonderful cook and always remembers everybody"s birthdays. If these images are being constantly spread out over our airwaves, what does that tell our children who are growing up watching & learning daily, hourly, that men are just so stupid, abusive and " well, useless? Father's rights group want shared parenting (equal custody) to be the default if both parents want custody and neither parent is unfit. They feel that men should not be punished for being men, and that women should not be awarded custody to their kids simply for being women. Currently women are awarded primary custody almost all the time, even if the husband was the stay-at-home Dad and the woman was the breadwinner. Feminists fought against this. You can read NOW"s own statement here. Also note their usage of anti-male lies, i.e. "fathers are abusive, don"t give them custody." Men want an end to the justice system favoring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men. Feminists fought against this, arguing that no woman should be sent to jail, even women who had murdered multiple people. Men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of "being male" under primary aggressor policies. Feminists fought against this by trying to suppress evidence showing that half of domestic violence is done by women, by threatening the researchers with bomb threats, death threats, etc. Modern, younger feminists are doing it as well. And sadly, they were successful in this effort of propaganda. For decades, and continuing today, "violent" men are convicted and punished by the state, while violent women are left to freely terrorize and harm their partners. Rebuttals The literal definition of feminism is tainted by the feminism of today, that is no longer about gender equality, and I have provided ample amounts of proof. Definitions are defeated easily by this proof. Radical/Extremist feminists are the most prominent and famous feminists, so they successful changed the definition of feminism. Famous Feminists Quotes! "Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex." ~Valerie Solanas, the SCUM Manifesto ___________________________________________________ "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." ~National NOW Times, Jan.1988 ____________________________________________________ "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." ~Catherine Comins, Vassar College, Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52 ____________________________________________________ "The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it" ~Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in Women and the New Rage, p.67 ____________________________________________________ "I feel that "man-hating" is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." ~Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor ____________________________________________________ "To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he"s a machine, a walking dildo." ~Valerie Solanas ____________________________________________________ "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." ~Andrea Dworkin ____________________________________________________ "Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" ~Susan Brownmiller ____________________________________________________ "The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men." ~Sharon Stone ____________________________________________________ "In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." ~Catherine MacKinnon ____________________________________________________ "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." ~Sally Miller Gearhart ____________________________________________________ "All men are rapists and that"s all they are" ~Marilyn French ____________________________________________________ "Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release." ~Germaine Greer ____________________________________________________ "Sex is the cross on which women are crucified " Sex can only be adequately defined as universal rape." ~Hodee Edwards____________________________________________________ "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." ~Hillary Clinton ____________________________________________________ "MAN: " an obsolete life form" an ordinary creature who needs to be watched " a contradictory baby-man "" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "TESTOSTERONE POISONING: " "Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning."" ~A Feminist Dictionary ____________________________________________________ "Patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself" The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their home." ~Gloria Steinem in Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem, pp. 259-261. ____________________________________________________ "Women take their roles of caretakers very seriously and when they hear of someone who"s taken advantage of a child, they react more strongly than men do." ~Kathleen C. Faller ____________________________________________________ "I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He"s just incapable of it." ~Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan ____________________________________________________ "I wonder if he [Martin Luther King] really accomplished things, or if he just stirred people up and caused a lot of riots." ~Melbourne City Councilwoman Pat Poole on her opposition to renaming a street for Martin Luther King ____________________________________________________ "Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman"s daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman"s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman," ~Andrea Dworkin, Liberty, p.58 ______________________________________________________________ "Compare victims" reports of rape with women"s reports of sex. They look a lot alike".[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it." ~Catherine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, "Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation," Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991. ____________________________________________________ "The fact is that the process of killing - both rape and battery are steps in that process- is the prime sexual act for men in reality and/or in imagination.". ~Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 22.. ____________________________________________________ "Man"s discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along with the use of fire, and the first crude stone axe." ~Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, p. 5.. ____________________________________________________ The newest variations on this distressingly ancient theme center on hormones and DNA: men are biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA, in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape." ~Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 114.. ____________________________________________________ Thank you (opponent) for debating this topic with me.

  • PRO

    I disagree. ... Debate will be limited to 4 rounds.

    3rd wave feminism has made notable progress for civil rights

    My opponent believes the 3rd wave of feminism has not made any progress. I disagree. Debate will be limited to 4 rounds.

  • PRO

    Feminism especially today is more for sexism than rather...

    Feminism more like sexism or more like (Female supremacy).

    Feminism especially today is more for sexism than rather equality......... Rules: 1. No trolling. 2.Round 1: is acceptance 3.

  • PRO

    This may be by affecting the social and economic...

    The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

    I am not not sure what your argument is here exactly. It seems you have eluded us to the fact that a "culture" is made up of the people"s collective attitude"s and value"s. This is of-course true but does not challenge my argument. Your point at the end is that culture doesn"t affect behaviour that much, so my initial premise that feminism has a negative impact cannot be accurate because feminism does not have an impact; or an significant impact. Your argument for this is that people have free-will whatever their situation and so culture does not effect relationships enough for the influences of feminism to have the negative impact I am referring to. I have made the argument twice now for culture effecting relationships but my opponent remains unconvinced. I will make two more attempts to get this point across: What my opponenent misses out in his analysis of culture is the influence of technological, social and interlectual factors. These exist outside the individual and significantly impact the individuals decisions. This may be by affecting the social and economic structures in place, such as the change from farming to industry changed the availability of work and the structure of the family; or it may be philosophical/interlectual, for instance the belief that women could go to school significantly effected womens choices and perception of themselves. Another philosophical change has been the adaptation to secularism, in which it has become acceptable for people to engage in non-religious practices and relationships. You highlightred the current economical need for women to engage in work, to be a factor in influencing women to engage in paid work, which then leads to change in perception of women. Many of these changes are separate from the collective individual I struggle with your oversimplification of this matter by highlighting the fact that people can theoretically do what they want even if it means social exclusion and even criminal charges. This brings me on to point two: your argument may be relevant when referring to a specific individual and referring to that individual. However my premis refers to society as a whole and so individual freedom is less relevant. I argue relationships have been negatively effected as a whole so your or my freedom to choose differently is irellevant; I am not arguing that it effects my relationship (though it does) and that I cannot change it. In which case you would be justified in highlighting my power over the situation. However the fact that certain attitudes, encouraged by feminism, lead to more confrontational and shorter relationships in a significantly large portion of the population is not disputed by the fact that I (Tom) have some power to resist that ideology. I have left myself no time to finish this argument I apologize I will try and summerise. You keep saying that society has no influence then referring to things like social constructionism. You also state that "My opponent argues that certain branches of feminism encourage women to reject the role of "housewife" and that men and women are the same. First off, it's a bit superfluous for a feminist to encourage women to reject the role of "housewife", because most of western society has already rejected it" So if society has rejected it, then is that not society and values effecting relationships? I don"t get what you cannot see here. So that"s your argument against the first premise. I feel that that is all you have offered. You seem to have merely repeated your first point that people have free-will and there is an individualistic factor contributing to relationship satisfaction. I feel as though I have addressed this point thoroughly. You have offered no rebuttal to my other statements about the effect of egalitarian attitudes on relationship satisfaction and the natural order of things. Women are generally better suited to childcare and small-time care work than males, and males are generally more adept to bigger business ventures/career paths; is it right to discourage women from the role that most of them would be happier in?

  • PRO

    The reason I'm a feminist is that there is very little...

    Feminism is not misandry, but rather the belief in gender equality

    I do believe in the rights of men as well as the rights of women. The reason I'm a feminist is that there is very little sexism against men compared to sexism against women. The reason I'm a feminist is that there is very little sexism against men compared to sexism against women. Feminism focuses on the problems that women face rather than the problems that men face because men face very few problems, while women face many problems. Feminists want women to have the rights that men already have. By saying that equal rights for people of all genders should be upheld over the rights of a few women, you're ignoring the fact that men already have rights in nearly every place in the world. The same can not be said for women.

  • PRO

    Boys are just as vulnerable as girls. ... Feminism is NOT...

    Feminism is no longer beneficial to our modern society

    Thanks con. I understand that your data is from 2010 and that still makes it five years behind. You could get data from this year, and the information could be easily manipulated as most companies don't reveal their employee pay rates. America has an unpaid 12 week maternity leave according to Wikipedia which isn't a lot compared to other countries but is still something not offered to their male co workers. Again, the data can not be confirmed and therefore shouldn't be your main argument or even an argument. Parental leave is different from maternity leave. Yes, I was only rebutting an argument and even if feminist groups redefined rape, it still doesn't prove my point wrong. Boys are just as vulnerable as girls. I know, a lot of people oppose feminism but usually they are simply considered sexist or trolling. The republican party isn't that anti feminist. AND they lost quite a few elections Sources... Well, brainwashing really wasn't a good word but you do realise that most feminists are women and most women are feminists. Again, if you want to prove me wrong you can just go ahead and ask every women you see whether they are feminists. They are still majority. And yes, they are quite close minded, at least the ones I have see. It seems like they would not consider any other ideology and dismiss any attempt proving them wrong as trolling. And what is MRA? This is voting period so I am not going to add anything. Boys are just as vulnerable as girls. I know, a lot of people oppose feminism but usually they are simply considered sexist or trolling. The republican party isn't that anti feminist. AND they lost quite a few elections Sources... Well, brainwashing really wasn't a good word but you do realise that most feminists are women and most women are feminists. Again, if you want to prove me wrong you can just go ahead and ask every women you see whether they are feminists. They are still majority. And yes, they are quite close minded, at least the ones I have see. It seems like they would not consider any other ideology and dismiss any attempt proving them wrong as trolling. And what is MRA? This is voting period so I am not going to add anything. Feminism is NOT beneficial to our modern society.

  • PRO

    I accept this debate. Resolved: Feminism creates pseudo...

    Feminism creates pseudo problems and is nowhere near as relevant as Feminists claim it is

    I accept this debate. Resolved: Feminism creates pseudo problems and is nowhere near as relevant as Feminists claim it is Pseudo -- "not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham." [1. http://tinyurl.com...] Problem -- "a question proposed for solution or discussion." [2. http://tinyurl.com...] Because I am PRO, I will be arguing in favor of this resolution. CON will try to refute this resolution. I will now point out why this debate is already over. CON states, "In this day in age, I have been noticing a few feminists creating a series of pseudo-problems such as "there aren't enough women in video games" when clearly these 'problems' have simple answers." He has conceded that feminism has created pseudo-problems. He goes on to make the same statement upon concluding: "These constant streams of pseudo problems and duplicitous claims leads me to the conclusion that Feminists are simply trying to find anything to latch on to, victimizing themselves in the most bizarre ways imaginable in order to stay relevant." He again repeats that feminism creates, as he says, "pseudo problems" and that feminists are essentially desperate to stay relevant, from which we draw the view that feminism isn't nearly as relevant as feminists would have you think. At this point, the debate ia already over. CON has already conceded the debate and backed my position. For fun, I will address the rest of his arguments and explain how they also further the position I am defending as PRO. CON states, "video game designers are catering to the majority in order to make a profit and not to 'oppress' women. What exactly is to be gained financially by appealing to the demands of the minority of your customer base? Causes like this are near pointless due to the fact they are overanalyzed until they become a direct threat and/or threat against women." CON concedes that the problem he claims that feminists cite -- not enough women in video games -- is merely to make a profit and is a matter of business savvy, not of oppressing woman. He claims that this is a pointless cause which is overanalyzed and sensationalized to virtually no end. This is a position in support of my position because women in video games is a pseudo-problem, and CON admits to this. Wage Gap Con states, "Moving on to women in the workplace, Feminists will argue that for every $1.00US a man makes a woman will make $0.80US. However, these same feminists fail to point out the fact that men typically do not quit their jobs to raise a family, are less likely to work part time, are more likely to go into a career path in which one is expected to perform laborious activities in extremely strenuous conditions, and are more likely to retire at a elderly age thereby getting the benefit of seniority. These factors are completely left out to make it seem as if the female population is being oppressed within the working environment. It is up to the individual to choose what career pathway they work in and due to the fact that many women prefer fields that do not require strenuous work or physical labor, naturally, they will be making less money than their male counterparts. Feminism cannot force women into fields that they do not wish to work in." Of course, every single point here, from "feminists fail to point to the fact...[...]" down is an argument in favor of my position. He explains that the "equal pay for equal work" argument is merely a sham -- a pseudo-problem -- and there are a number of factors that feminists have discounted. This is obviously an argument in favor of my position. I would like to expand on this argument regarding this by backing it up with some epirics. Economist Stephen Moore says the following, essentially saying the same thing that CON has said: "President Obama uses the figure of 77 cents earned by a woman for every dollar earned by a man. But that is a comparison of all women with all men (and even Mr. Obama’s own economists say a woman earns 81 cents for every dollar earned by her male counterpart). In fact, a 2009 Labor Department study found that, when we control for work experience and education, the gap is only about 5 percent. And when we account for the fact that men are more likely to be injured or suffer an accident on the job, and do riskier work and often more unpleasant jobs than women, the gap virtually disappears." [3. http://tinyurl.com...] Moore pointed to a 2009 study from the Department of Labor which note shtat, if we control for work and education, the vast majority of the gap dissipates. If we add in on-the-job risk, the gap essentially dissipates. This makes the wage gap a "pseudo problem." Moore went on to point out that, among surveys of recent college graduates, there there is virtually no pay discrepancy. He calls this notion of a gender-pay gap "as outdated as bell-bottom jeans" -- in other words, a pseudo problem. Moore goes on to say, the following, calling this issue a distraction from the real problem which is falling pay generally speaking, even though female pay hasn't following as much as male pay: "Gender gaps in pay are also a distraction from the other real financial problem, which is declining pay for almost all groups. Between 2009 and 2012, every racial group and both genders have done worse. Actually, women’s paychecks have fallen slightly more than men’s in this phony recovery." [3. http://tinyurl.com...] Therefore, the wage gap is indeed a pseudo-problem. Abortion CON states, "Regardless of your opinions about the morality of this subject, Feminists constantly argue that this is a woman's rights issue. However, the legality of aborting a human fetus has never been a woman's rights issue; it has always been a human's rights issue and about determining whether or not it is moral to kill a unborn child due to personal choices and/or financial reasons. Feminism is not needed to determine this." CON again affirms my position! Abortion is not a matter of feminism or women's rights; it's a matter of people, especially people with deeply-held religious beliefs who believe that abortion is murder, fighting for whom they consider to be the most vulnerable among them. They feel as though they have an obligation to protect those people. It is not about oppressing women, but about protecting human life. CON completely concedes this point. It's also possible to address abortion as a "pseudo-problem" from a different angle; one could say that, given the current composition of the court and the current legality of abortion, there is almost no way -- especially with a pro-choice Democratic president -- that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. Therefore, clamoring over abortion is a "pseduo problem" because there isn't a high likelihood at all that it will actually be banned. And even in the off-chance that Roe is overturned, it would simply return to the states, the vast majority of which would keep it legal. Sexual Violence CON once again made the point for me: sexual violence is a very big problem -- that doesn't, of course, refute the resolution, because as long as I can prove that feminism creates pseudo problems (I have done so), it holds, and sexual violence exists independent of feminism, anyway -- but the feminist solution, which is largely a fallacy of composition presuming that men are ipso facto bad is simply wrong and unproductive, and telling people "not to do X" isn't necessarily going to stop them. A broader, more comprehensive solution is needed and we need a more open dialogue, rather than a diatribe against an entire group of people just because they happen to be male. Sexual violence also occurs against men [4. http://tinyurl.com...]. Why don't they bring it up? Relevancy CON has already conceded this point, as well, but I'm going to address it further. There's been some polling on this subject, and we know that about 72% of Americans do NOT identify as feminists [5. http://tinyurl.com...]. Moreover, only 18 percent of men and 38 percent of women accept the label. If we look at the Baby Boomer generation, only 41 percent identify as feminists. Only 28 percent of women over 65, only 42 percent of millenials, and only 32 percent of Gen X women identify as feminists. The poll was clear about how Americans view feminism as well: "It is negative associations people carry regarding feminism that causes Americans to shy away from the label. People are twice as likely to consider calling someone a feminist to be an insult (23 percent) rather than a compliment (12 percent)." [5.http://tinyurl.com...]. People do not view feminism fondly. Despite the fact that some would argue that feminism is only about equality, this is a flat-out distortion, and the vast plurality of the American public does not share such a view. They see it as an insult, and believe that the way we solve this issue is to work together rather than alienate and attack each other. Feminism is therefore irrelevant. Conclusion As I pointed out earlier, CON has already conceded the debate. I am PRO, and therefore am affirming the resolution. As CON, he needs to negate the resolution. He has failed to do so.

  • PRO

    Today, a stay-at-home mother is viewed as a kind of...

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

    Gender equality by definition harms men, women, families and society. The bottom line, says Venker, is that, "Feminism has sabotaged women's happiness." Worse, she adds, it's flipped male-female relationships upside down. Just one example: Men more than ever are seeking love, marriage and kids while women want independence. As Schlafly's niece, Venker grew up seeing an alternative view to mainstream feminists views on TV and in the media. Now as a mother in Missouri, she's trying to help her aunt highlight what conservatives feel is wrong with feminism and to build a new understanding between men and women. The book is controversial, especially in liberal circles, for lines like this: "Unfortunately, once feminism came along, women abandoned their pedestal in droves and decided they wanted to share the man's pedestal with him. They claimed they wanted both sexes on the same pedestal to represent equality and prove men and women are the same. Instead, they found themselves in conflict. Since there isn't enough room on a pedestal for both of them, feminists pushed men off to make room for themselves." She added, "That's not equality. That's matriarchy." On sex: "Sex is a problem, too. More and more wives today say they're too tired for sex. ...Naturally, this poses a problem for husbands, who are rarely too tired for sex. Sex is a man's favorite past time, and the wives who are too tired to have it are often resentful of this fact. If change is going to come, it will have to come from women"they are the ones who changed the natural order of things. Moreover, men aren't the ones who kvetch about their place in the world"not because they have it so great, contrary to feminist dogma, but because it's not in their nature. Men tend to go along with whatever women say they need." The duo have also raised concerns about Palin calling herself a conservative feminist. "You can't be both," says Venker, who adds that Palin is "confusing" conservatives by calling herself a feminist. Mainstream media and liberal politicians and pundits also take a big hit, blamed for promoting feminism. They are especially critical of the "feminist elite" including Oprah, first lady Michelle Obama, CBS anchor Katie Couric, and Arianna Huffington. "What these women have in common is clout, and they believe they know that's best for women," they write, adding: "The problem is that the majority of women in this country don't have the power"feminists do. And feminists influence liberals as well as conservatives to confirm to the feminist message." From the book and our recent interview, Whispers has pulled this list: Five Ways That Feminism Has Ruined America 1. It hurt marriage. Women want to wait so that they can keep their identities longer and men are finding easy sex, taking away a big reason for marriage. 2. Undermines child rearing. More kids are in childcare where discipline is lax resulting in a "epidemic" of bad kids, childhood obesity, and bullies. 3. Two-income trap. With both husband and wife working it's hard to live without life's luxuries. 4. Undermines college sports. Title IX has ended many male-only sports at some colleges. 5. Emasculates men. It's better to be a wuss than speak up or mouth off and face charges of harassment or chauvinism. Today, a stay-at-home mother is viewed as a kind of second-class woman. In fact, feminists do not even view stay-at-home mothers as persons. This derogatory view began with Betty Friedan. "[V]acuuming the living room floor"with or without makeup"is not work that takes enough thought or energy to challenge any woman"s full capacity. Down through the ages man has known that he was set apart from other animals by his mind"s power to have an idea, a vision, and shape the future to it. " [W]hen he discovers and creates and shapes a future different from his past, he is a man, a human being" (The Feminine Mystique). The basic idea of feminism was that women should have a choice to go to the workplace and become less animal-like. What does that make a stay-at-home mother? Since being a wife and mother was supposedly glorified in the 1950s, the women"s movement fought to demote that role to the lowest level possible. Many impressionable young women wholeheartedly believed this 1960s philosophy. Unfortunately, this feminist teaching has planted deep roots in the consciousness of American women. The feminist tree has blossomed. Today, it is considered a great shame to be a wife and mother only. In fact, being a wife and mother is synonymous with the meaningless life of a lower, uneducated class of people. What are today"s fruits of this philosophy? The fight for women"s rights has actually turned into a fight against the family. Even the mothers of modern feminism admit that radical feminists have worked hard to repudiate the family. Feminist Stephanie Coontz, history professor at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wa., wrote in the Washington Post, "We cannot afford to construct our social policies, our advice to our own children and even our own emotional expectations around the illusion that all commitments, sexual activities and caregiving will take place in a traditional marriage" (May 1). You don"t have to read between the lines to understand that such thinking is destroying the traditional family! It is within the Anglo-American world that feminism has been embraced the most passionately. These countries also have the highest divorce rates in the world, and are producing record numbers of fatherless children"which in turn creates many other social problems. Robert Sheaffer writes, "One can try to argue that the U.S. family died of natural causes at precisely the same time feminists began shooting at it, but after examining the depth and ferocity of the feminist attack against women"s roles as wives and mothers, such an argument fails to convince" (Feminism, the Noble Lie). Let"s own up to it: Feminism has caused some tragic results for the family. If we are going to fix our social problems, we must recognize that feminism has led our Western families into serious crises. Here is how it happened. Although many young women answered the call to pursue a career, they could not deny their natural desire for a husband and children. Many then opted to have a husband, children and a career. Realizing that certain feminine desires could not be denied, a new movement slogan was quickly pushed into public view""having it all." This slogan lives on. But it ignores a hard reality for many working mothers: Having it all also means handling it all. Working career mothers were forced into a high-stress rat race. Having it all was supposed to be fulfilling, but it was not. Now, almost four decades later, women find they are not any closer to finding true, satisfying fulfillment. For some, "having it all" has meant losing it all. The truth is, working mothers suffer. The children of working mothers always suffer. And should we forget"the husband suffers too. Severe fatigue plagues many working mothers. Balancing career, marriage and child care is an impossible task. Few can actually do it all. To do it all, corners have to be cut. Unfortunately, because of feminist peer pressure, marriage and family are sacrificed before career. Many two-career marriages have crumbled. Children have been left at home alone. Can we begin to see the harm that working motherhood has done to families? Our society of working mothers is a disaster. Experts agree that the industrial revolution produced families with absentee fathers. Now feminism has given us families with absentee mothers. What does this mean? Essentially, our children are growing up alone. It is estimated that as many as 60 percent of American children do not have full-time parental supervision. Think about it. If children are blessed enough to be in a two-parent home, generally they still have both parents working outside the home. The children are left home alone. If the family is run by a single parent, that parent (whether male or female) is working. Again, the children are home alone. This means our youth are growing up with an ever-dwindling amount of parental love, nurturing and supervision. The average latchkey child (a child returning home after school with no parent to greet him) is alone three hours per day. Some of these children are as young as 8; most are in their teens. When we think about parents arriving home after a difficult day at the office, we can logically surmise that there is not much quality time left for the child. All children and teens fundamentally need acceptance, praise, teaching and discipline. Children need to be taught right from wrong. Children need to learn how to be successful. This requires experience and activities. These needs are best met by parents. If these needs are not met at home, children have no other choice than to look elsewhere. This makes our children frustrated, angry and vulnerable to many dangers. http://www.usnews.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... a1. I have provided proof. a2. Your statement of her helping veterans had nothing to do with feminism. a3. I have provided proof that men are the overwhelming majority of rape victims. Actually yes it does have something to do with VAWA. a3-5. it shows that youth report sexual abuse from female staff. Feminists fight against men being able to be raped and women being able to rape or go to jail at all. My opponent has a burden of proof as they have not provided any evidence that these wave of feminism is not harmful and should exist.

  • PRO

    However, overly extremist feminists are taking their...

    American Feminism is Going too Far

    American feminism is a force to be reckoned with nowadays. I myself am a woman and believe all people should be treated fairly regardless the gender, size, shape, color, ethnicity, etc. However, overly extremist feminists are taking their freedom for granted thus making the rest of us women have an angry spoiled appearance compared to the many of oppressed, voiceless women in counties such as Iran or Palestine. Many women nowadays are asking for way too much, like higher wages for lesser jobs, and "freeing the nipple" because they think it isn't fair that men get too. Frankly put, women and men are not the exact same people, otherwise there would be no genders. It's much too late in the game for women to push their limits on dress codes and over expectation. I say, things are good the way they are now at least in the states. Places that should be helped are those such that have women suffering to stay alive. Not knowing that the next day they could be killed because a few strands of hair was showing. Bottom line, I'm fortunate as are so many fellow women in this country. We have the ability to do everything a man does and that for a lot of people is enough.

CON

  • CON

    The reason why it's called "Feminism" is because it deals...

    This house believes that the feminist movement should renounce the title of "Feminism".

    The reason why it's called "Feminism" is because it deals with social problems specifically aimed at women. Issues like earning less. In 2011, female full-time workers made only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gender wage gap of 23 percent. [1] And issues like rape. In 2011 the US Centers for Disease Control found that "nearly 20% of all women" suffered rape or attempted rape sometime in their life. More than a third of the victims were raped before the age of 18.[2]. These are issues that us dudes largely don't have to worry about. Since the focus is on women, the name should obviously reflect that. Women's issues has a long history of fighting oppression and gaining rights, like being classified as "persons" and to vote and to drive and so on and so on [3]. Even right now in the world, you see women fighting their male dominated governments in order to gain rights, like being allowed to go to school and drive in the middle east [4]. You don't see this kind of thing happening to men, which is why it only makes sense to call it Women's issues has a long history of fighting oppression and gaining rights, like being classified as "persons" and to vote and to drive and so on and so on [3]. Even right now in the world, you see women fighting their male dominated governments in order to gain rights, like being allowed to go to school and drive in the middle east [4]. You don't see this kind of thing happening to men, which is why it only makes sense to call it feminism. It's about equal rights, but since women are the ones fighting for equal rights, the name is meant to represent their perspective. Basically, to conclude, the name "feminism" is appropriate for this field of study because it is specifically dealing with rights issues with women. men don't have this problem, so just calling it "equal sex rights-ism" or something like that doesn't even things out, it just takes the focus away from what the actual issue is about. 1. http://www.iwpr.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.history.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...

  • CON

    As with any groups as well, I have noticed that there are...

    Feminism is morally good

    Thank you for accepting. Based on such a definition, I'm afraid Ill have to respectfully disagree. Let it be known, there may be few individuals as hard-pressed for equality as I am. But, Morally I believe the feminist movement has strayed a tad too far from their main goal. to which I understood as "all people are equal in the eyes of the law". As with any groups as well, I have noticed that there are more than one sub-group of feminists and I feel this could be detrimental to their cause, but I digress. The Moral is defined as: "Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character." I fail to see the morality of trying to come out on top. will you deny the existence of the radical feminist movements that are so ant-male that it would seem they would wipe them out if given the chance? They are under the banner of "feminism" correct? Is this healthy for society? If women want equality, is claiming a title the way to go about it? how can one achieve equality when they're under a collective banner? It's similar to the Boyscouts of America, (they consist of ALL male followers and leaders, and women are not allowed) Is a group consisting of an entirety of a single gender really helpful? they arent receiving any feedback this way...they would only ever hear like-minded opinions from followers they knew they would already obtain (AKA women) And to be perfectly honest, the strategy seems a tad "off" to me. I would gladly elaborate further but It would seem that my points might be jumping in several directions at once. Please, proceed. I shall organize these points to make them a bit less obtuse.

  • CON

    To start things off I will be saying that feminism is...

    Feminism in society and what is useful for,Rape Cultures existence, Wage Gaps existence

    To start things off I will be saying that feminism is useless and not helpful to society along with the fact that Rape culture does not exist and how the wage gap works in America. IF YOU ARE A FEMINIST THIS IS A TRIGGER WARNING!!

  • CON

    But men do get paid more than women per dollar which may...

    Feminism in society and what is useful for,Rape Cultures existence, Wage Gaps existence

    Feminism is women fighting for their rights when it can be argued they have more rights than men. Men will go to jail for raping a women whereas when a women rapes a man they go to jail for little to no time whereas a man can go for up to 20 years. But men do get paid more than women per dollar which may be in part because of the fact that men work longer hours and take less vacations every year then women. Feminism is useful because women deserve equal rights but they most likely won't ever get them because men are stubborn as all hell and will not give up their superiority. Rape culture does not exist. Quote From PEPELEFROG: "The definition of culture is the intellectual achievements of the human kind. Rape is not an achievement since it is something that has been happening since the beginning of time. Therefore rape is not an achievement of humans as a species. Feminists think that rape culture is a thing. They just need to learn what rape is and how it affects everyone around them. Rape is forcing sex upon a person unwilling to give consent. Women who have been rape tell everyone yet they shouldn't be crying out for help on the Internet but instead they should be talking to someone that can help them mentally get through it. They think that men and women should be equal but they do not know that more men get raped by women everyday then women get raped by men and yet the women gets less time in jail for their actions. Feminism is a flawed cause. If a man is domestically abused the man is almost certainly going to jail even if it is for the women's actions. Men are treated unfairly in America but then again so are women people can't seem to see this and are fighting for women's or men's rights when they should be fighting for both. Wage gap exists very heavily in the us because women get $.78 to the dollar. That is unfair and this is coming from a 37 year old male that works at a McDonald's from 9 to 5.

  • CON

    Pro has conceded in comments. ... As Pro has forfeited...

    Feminism has reached a point where it is now more harmful than good.

    Pro has conceded in comments. As Pro has forfeited another round, has yet to provide a valid argument to support the assertion that feminism is harmful and my points have been aptly made supporting the contrary position, there is no point in adding to my arguments here.

  • CON

    It is the assumption that, because a person is female,...

    Feminism is irrelevant, unjust and flawed. It should be stopped.

    If I understand your position correctly, (and I may not, so tell me if the situation is different) you believe that the equality of men and women is logical and right. However, you think feminists nowadays have no leg to stand on (equality with men has been achieved) and thus are left to resort to misandry and exaggerating their "suffering" (placing the blame on men). I am not going to use outdated and false arguments about the wage gap and male dominance in the workplace to try to prove that women and men are not totally equal. Women have more equality today than they have ever had in history, and I in no way am trying to say that we have anything near resembling the struggles for equality of the past. One thing that I feel many feminists think is lacking is gender respect. Please don't misunderstand me, there are huge quantities of men who treat women fairly and respectfully. However, there are also many who hold an unfair bias towards women. I see it in my school, in the media, in day-to-day interactions. It is the assumption that, because a person is female, they must therefore be inferior. Do you want examples? School: Refusal to accept girls onto a recess sports game. Teasing. I know, "they're just kids," right? But isn't that kind of indicative as to what type of people those kids will grow up to be? Media: Portrayal of women in advertising. Relative lack of positive role models in entertainment. Day-to-day: Assumption a male serviceperson is more capable than a female one. I have seen all these things time and time again. Once again, don't misunderstand me. This problem is two-sided. Women can be jerks. And they are! I am fully aware of the hordes of women who use the label of feminism as a feeble excuse to persecute men for what they falsely perceive as sexism. This is wrong. I cannot stress this enough. Lumping all men into an imaginary cesspool of ignorance and chauvinism is wrong. There are several points on which I agree with you: feminism is flawed, just like everything, and the mainstream media is full of misandry. I do not condone misandry, nor do I pretend that men and women are greatly or even moderately unequal in politics, economics, and society today. Not in most countries, at least. But feminism's noble ideals, the ideals that men and women should be considered equal and treated that way, (ideals with which we both agree, I believe) do not change because of the actions and words of a group of man-hating fools. To put it in simpler terms, just because someone claims a label doesn't mean that it applies to them. Like the oft-used argument that "Hitler was a Christian," that logic is incorrect. Would a follower of the Judeo-Christian God commit an atrocious genocide against the Chosen People? No. Similarly, would people who believe that men and women deserve equality berate and despise the entirety of one gender for the oppressive actions of a few? No. Feminism is associated with hatred of all males, but I, and many others, both men and women, know that is not what it stands for. It is simply the goal for equality. Men respecting women and women respecting men. I hope one day misandry and misogyny will be flushed into the metaphorical sewers of forgotten idiocy and we will be left with the situation that should have always been: total respect and equality for all.

  • CON

    The burden of proof is shared, so pro has to prove with...

    Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries

    A few weeks ago you told me you would like to debate this with me again so I figured I should challenge you to this debate again. Good luck. In this debate I will be arguing that Feminism is not helping us reach equality in 1st world countries and it is my opponents job to prove me wrong. Before I go any further I have one request and that is that you read everything I have to say and honestly consider it. I want everyone who watches and participates in this debate to leave with a better understanding of the topic and how the world works. The burden of proof is shared, so pro has to prove with evidence that Feminism is helping us reach equality in 1st world countries. The first round is for accepting the debate. The second round is for opening statements and new arguments. No rebuttals The third round will be rebuttals with new arguments still allowed The fourth round is for final rebuttals and a closing statement/speech Rules: 1. Stick to the resolution. 2. Be open minded. 3. If you're going to debate this with me please be willing to take it seriously and respond. 4. Good luck to whoever may accept this debate

  • CON

    Note that there is an actual fight for gender equality...

    current state of feminism in first-world countries

    In the 21st century, in countries with a rather equal social status of people of any gender, race, religion or sexuality, such as America or the UK, feminism has been rendered obsolete. There is simply no major issue with gender equality in those countries, so feminists resort to hating on this dude's shirt (http://www.theverge.com...) or criticising woman characters in video games (gamergate). Note that there is an actual fight for gender equality going on in less fortunate countries, where a little girl can be shot in the head for defending her right to go to school, but instead of in any way helping, these "feminists" just make life that much annoying for everyone. I know that one doesn't cancel out the other, but let's be honest here, most of them don't really do anything to help. Sorry if the text was too harsh. Let me know if you want to join.

  • CON

    This critical strategy first emerged within the feminist...

    Feminism represents a small, privileged constituency of middle-class white women, who can afford to ...

    This critical strategy first emerged within the feminist movement itself, and was immediately recognised within the movement as a serious problem - which suggests that it should be aimed at certain feminists rather than at feminism as a whole. It points to the need for feminism to be a wider movement against inequality wherever it is found, rather than suggesting that it is no longer necessary.

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/2701-feminism/
    • score
      BM25 score: 16.98
      feminism: 16.98
      conclusion: 4.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 0.55)
      premises: 10.01 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.70)
      sourceText: 2.00 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.14)
  • CON

    After all, even if females have defended society, and...

    Feminism is based upon female entitlement to male achievements.

    My opponent has forfeited Round 3, so I am just going to finish my rebuttals before presenting a few more arguments. I have already refuted the notion that academic fields only exist due to male achievement. My opponent next claims that all of these achievements are founded upon the male ability to protect society; i.e. if society did not exist, then neither would these achievements. The first reason that this is fallacious is that it presumes that females are incapable of protecting themselves and the rest of society. Absent the existence of male protections, my opponent reasons, society would not exist and neither would these inventions. Although females are biologically weaker than males, they are still capable of defending themselves and society. The reason that they have historically not done so is that the patriarchal structures have traditionally banned them from participation in military defense. However, when females do participate, they can make extraordinary contributions to social defense. Joan of Arc was a peasant girl who snatched the English victory in the Hundred Year's War out of Britain's jaws and defended her French homeland. Mai Bhago, a Sikh housewife, shamed cowardly Sikh men into rejoining the war effort against the Mughals; she was such an excellent warrior that she became the personal bodyguard of the Sikh leader, Guru Gobind Singh. Triệu Thị Trinh successfully defended Vietnam from the invading Wu dynasty. In fact, she was so successful at leading military campaigns that she actually carved out a portion of Vietnam as her own and ruled that area until her death. Boudicca was an anti-imperialist Norfolk Queen who razed imperial Roman settlements and struck fear in the enemy's military leaders. The Trưng Sisters, now nationally recognized as Vietnamese heroes, repelled Chinese forces for three years. Fu Hao, a leader of the Shang dynasty, was the most powerful military leader of 1200 B.C.; she successfully expanded her empire and defeated her enemies, the Tu. Ahhotep I drove the Hyskos invaders out of Egypt and successfully paved the way for uniting Upper and Lower Egypt into one nation. Zenobia, a female leader of Syria, defeated the patriarchal Roman Empire so decisively that she was able to completely drive the Romans out of Asia minor. She was so successful at her military campaigns that three other nations surrendered themselves to her and accepted her as their Queen. Tamara of Georgia, a ruler so respected by her people that she was declared the "King of Kings and Queen of Queens", actively commanded her own troops in battle and brought down every neighboring Muslim state while simultaneously annexing Armenia and establishing the Empire of Trebizond. What the success of these female warriors demonstrates is that not only have females historically contributed to the defense of their homelands as conquerors, rebel leaders, and foot soldiers, but also that the female role in social defense is every bit as possible and necessary as the male role in defense. He will probably claim that this does not matter. After all, even if females have defended society, and even if males prevent them from participating in defense, males still sacrificed their lives. In reply, I posit that achievement and sacrifice are not true achievements and sacrifices if they are done while forcefully preventing others from doing the same. They do not deserve any special recognition unless they are done when others do not wish to achieve or sacrifice or if all are free to achieve and sacrifice but only some do. In addition, even if you disagree with this, note that at best, this would mandate giving the males who actually sacrificed and defended society some sort of special honor and distinction (which we already do); granting other males the fruits of the sacrifice permits those other males to unfairly steal the rewards of actions they did not commit. So, what I have consistently proven is that permitting females to participate in "male" life does not violate any rules of biology; females are perfectly capable of advancing intellectual fields just as well as, if not better than, males and females are also perfectly capable of defending their nations just as well as males. His entire claim, then, rests on a notion of biological gender roles that has been refuted. His final argument is that male self-entitlement results in a variety of harms and female self-entitlement rests in feminism. Comparing the two phenomena is nonsensical; feminism is not attempting to claim male achievements as its own but rather is simply demanding acknowledgment of female achievements and for individuals to be judged based on their merits rather than on their reproductive capabilities. Since I have discussed what feminism does not entail, I will now discuss what it does entail. Nothing has inherent value. Rocks, humans, trees, etc. are all entirely meaningless. What confers value on an object is our ability to subjectively impose our preferences on it. My life also doesn't have inherent value. I give it value when I am free to pursue my own ends and engage in activities that I find worthwhile. But why does this matter? The end for all humans is happiness. Happiness is the proper end to have because it is not a means to any other end. So, insofar as my ability to be happy stems from my ability to pursue my own ends and thus confer worth upon myself, the most moral thing for me to do would be to pursue my own ends. Now, we run into a bit of a problem. What if my desire to pursue my own ends conflicts with another person's desire to pursue his own ends? For example, what if I gain happiness by killing others? From this is it is clear that we must have constraints on actions. In order to maximize happiness for all people, we must ensure that all people are able to pursue their own ends The best means through which we enable all people to pursue their own ends is through individual, hypothetical contracts that we make to not violate each others' ability to pursue ends . We constrain our interests if others constrain their interests so that we do not violate each others' autonomy. From these contracts, we create the basis of rights like life, liberty, and property. If we did not accept these contracts, there would be no reason for other people to do so either, and thus we could very easily violate autonomy and eliminate the basis for self-worth. From this we can see that rights entail noninterference. Feminism uses this liberal theory to draw several important conclusions. First, all individuals, regardless of gender, have the same basic rights. These rights are drawn from the internal nature of each individual rather than the good for society as a whole. Rights are reciprocal, and everyone merits the same treatment from everyone else. Second, gender roles should not be forced on anybody because they violate the individual's capacity to pursue her own ends. Both males and females ought to be the authors of their own lives, since they understand what they value. Third, individuals ought to be judged as individuals based on their merits rather than being categorized into arbitrary groups and judged based on common characteristics. Feminism thus does not seek to emasculate males or to strip them of their rights; rather, they advocate spreading rights and goods fairly among all people. Feminist theories may differ on the implementation of this (some advocate market distribution while others are more egalitarian, for example), but all feminist theories have a basic level of egalitarianism that is based on individual worth and human dignity. As I have pointed out numerous times, my opponent is grouping people together based on shared reproductive characteristics and arguing that they ought to be judged as groups rather than as individuals. Feminism rejects this and notes that since people are individuals should be judged based on their merits as individuals rather than as parts of a large group. In fact, I would posit that the entire nature of the affirmative case, which is based on gender roles, is nothing more than a fallacy of division. Now, since my opponent forfeited Round 3, please extend all of my rebuttals from Round 2. They were entirely uncontested in this debate. Thank you.