Pro vs. con view
1031 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    This again, is a human issue not a male only or female...

    Feminism is a poisonous belief system that needs to be done away with.

    In Saudi Arabia for example, the testimony of one man is equal to the testimony of 3 women in a court of Law. Women can't even drive or go out without being accompanied by a Mahhram(A male relative who cannot marry the woman) or her husband* This is true but there is more to it than meets the eye. The normal rule is that women should be safeguarded against the contingency of having to appear as witnesses in judicial proceedings. Therefore, normally a woman should not be called upon to attest a document recording a transaction. This rule may be relaxed in an emergency. But then another difficulty would arise. In the case of male witnesses their memory of a transaction that they attest as witnesses would be refreshed when they met socially and the transaction was recalled for one reason or another. 1n the case of a document recording a transaction, which is attested by one male and one female witness, the female witness, under the Islamic social system, as will presently be appreciated, would not normally have frequent occasion to meet the male witness and talk to him, so that there would be little chance of her memory of the transaction being refreshed. To overcome this lack of opportunity of refreshing the memory, it is wisely provided that where only one male witness is available two female witnesses may be called upon so that, in the very words of the text, one may refresh the memory of the other. This provision is concerned only with the preservation of evidence, and does not deal with the weight to be attached to the testimony of a male or female witness. An illustration may help to clear up any doubt on the matter. Assume that a transaction recorded in a document attested by one male and two female witnesses becomes the subject of a dispute which comes up for judicial determination. It is then discovered that one of the two female witnesses has in the mean time died. The male witness and the surviving female witness are examined in court and the judge finds that their respective accounts of the terms of the transaction are not entirely in harmony; but he feels very strongly that taking e very relevant factor into consideration the testimony of the female witness is more reliable than that of the male witness. In such a case it would be his plain duty to rely on the testimony of the female witness in preference to that of the male witness. There could be no question of discrimination in favour of or against a woman. *.This is simply because there is a cultural bias against women in these societies that assigns traditional gender roles to women and requires them to stay inside their homes* I could not agree with this more. However, gender roles are not a one way street. Men are EXPECTED to go to work, raise money for the wife and kids, even in developed first world countries. A woman chooses to go to work if she wants. The only difference between the western world and the eastern countries that you have just mentioned is, that in those eastern countries the women are also expected to fulfill their (supposed) gender roles of having children and keeping the home. This again, is a human issue not a male only or female only issue. As far as the medical care and nutrition care goes. You are going to have to give me statistics and data on that. I have studied this issue out thoroughly and I have never heard of someone receiving less care simply because they were female. if anything women tend to be taken care of first. (such as the old Titanic adage women and children first!) So I won't believe that until I see some evidence. *Female Genital Mutilation* This one, I have to be honest I can't even believe you're bringing up. With the amount of male genital mutilization running rampant in the world. It is a common practice the world over even I am circumcised. I am not saying that stopping female GM isn't important. I'm saying that I can't believe that you are using it as an example of how the "Patriarchy" keeps women subservient. It is wrong and terrible to be sure, but it isn't a sign of worldwide domination. *Bride Burning and Dowry Violence* I have never been to India so I can only comment on this as an outsider. First, let me say how sorry I am this is happening in your country. I truly mean that. The very fact that there are such strict punishments on this should prove that it isn't socially acceptable. This again can be chalked up to the mantra "Crappy people do crappy things." again if this were truly, the Patriarchy keeping women down it would be glossed over or it would be completely ignored. It isn't which means your countrymen and women have discovered an issue and are doing their best to resolve it. It's a movement forward. *Women are under represented in most modern democracies.* This, on the surface is true. Look into how many women are running for offices however. Women who do run and win positions of authority are lauded as heroes, and proverbial Joan of Arc's. Because of this it is reasonable to assume the only reason more women are not involved in politics is lack of interest. Not some great female destroying private organization. Simply put, it is very reasonable to assume the glass ceiling is woman made, due to lack of interest. *Domestic Violence* I posted more than enough evidence on this in my original statement so I will keep this brief. Couples fight and yes, when things turn deadly it's mostly men killing their spouses. However the data provided by myself shows why this might be the case. 70% of non reciprocal violence is female initiated. what happens when they hit to hard or go to far? The answer of course is males retaliate. I'm not saying it is correct or proper but to be sure if a woman came at me wielding a knife and I also had a weapon please believe that I would kill her in a heartbeat to save myself. I really enjoy living and I would like to remain alive as long as possible. Many numbers presented here by you are assuming that men are just murderous psychopaths who are lying in wait to kill their spouses when this just isn't the case. When it comes down to it, men more often than women get beaten, and women more often than men get seriously injured or killed when the other person retaliates. Every single issue that was brought up by you could be solved by egalitarianism. And to hang on for dear life to an ideology that has outlived it's usefulness and caused more harm than good is absolutely insane. Equality can be achieved but feminism will do nothing but hold that dream back.

  • PRO

    Women are sentenced to 40% less prison time than men, for...

    Feminism is not an ideology of equality

    Until I am corrected, I'm going to operate on the assumption that you're a feminist due to this debate format. Therefore, it makes sense that you'd attempt to distance yourself from the undesireables that I purport exist. The problem with that definition, and the philosophy it describes, presupposes that men have superior rights than women in every single case. That's not true. Men are not treated anywhere near fairly when it comes to child custody and child support cases [1]. Women are sentenced to 40% less prison time than men, for equivalent crimes, and more likely to avoid conviction altogether [2]. Prostate cancer, despite having a more-or-less equal rate of mortality and severity, recieves drastically less funding than breast cancer [3]. I could go on with domestic violence, hospital treatment, circumscision, education, drafting, etc. The term 'equality for women' is a contradiction in and of itself. [1]http://www.census.gov... [2]http://misformalevolent.blogspot.ca... [3]http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

  • PRO

    Researchers found that women with a degree born in 1958...

    THBT feminism has failed

    Thank you for your point. Researchers found that women with a degree born in 1958 earned nearly three times as much as women in unskilled jobs born in the same year - compared to a difference of less than half between men in the same groups. We see that it is unfair for women because they have to work twice as hard as men to achieve a professional status in the society. We believe that we should reap according to what we have sown and it should be the same for everyone, no matter who they are. Some may say that we are too idealistic, but we hope to improve the problem, no matter how little a step we take.

CON

  • CON

    My opponent has therefore presented no argument against...

    Modern Feminism is Not Needed in America

    I would refute that I broke the rules. My opponent is breaking the rules again by putting sources at the end rather than after each of the bullet point arguments as required. To add to the confusion my opponent has not even noted where those sources are used within the bullet point arguments. As for my rebuttals. My opponent continues to dishonestly misrepresent my position. In attempting to correct these strawmen in my argument R2, I went outside of the presented format, and fell into rebuttals. However, at best this is a mutual blame situation. Wage gap rebuttal My position is not nor has it ever been about the 21% wage gap, this is a strawman. The claim of 6% - 10% wage gap does not consider many factors references a factor taken from this strawman source “42 minutes less each day” discussing the 21% wage gap. This is dishonest as Pro is using points from the uncontrolled wage gap and trying to apply them a second time to the controlled wage gap to discredit the controlled wage gap. My opponent has therefore presented no argument against the wage gap, and my argument supporting the existence of a wage gap stands as the rules state that he can present a new argument in R4. Equal Opportunity rebuttal Again, my opponent is referencing the strawman of the 21% uncontrolled wage gap which “forces women to work jobs which paid higher”. The wage gap I am debating is 5 - 8% and compares the exact same job title. Again, my opponent is being dishonest and has not put forth an argument supporting that equal opportunity does exists and Pro cannot present a new argument in R4. Secondly disagree with the premise that “having no laws which target women or help men” means that “equal opportunity” exists. For this to be true Pro would have to prove laws completely control opportunity. I think we all are familiar with the old boy’s network concept (but I’ll add a link as well) where although there are no sexist laws, it is still not a case of equal opportunity. http://www.dictionary.com... Rape Culture rebuttal Again, a strawman as my position is not that the US trivialize rape. Also, my opponent dishonestly uses annual percentage and presents them as lifetime percentages. As well as being dishonest in indicating 2.1 of 1000 equals .0021% when it’s .21%. Had my opponent been more honest up to this point I would believe this an honest mathmatical mistake, but given how often Pro has dishonest, I don’t feel like this is the case, and I feel like he is exaggerating the numbers to make my position look bad. As proof on the math 10 of 1000 is 10/1000 = .01 which isn’t .01% but is actually 1%. You can confirm this by 10 X 100 = 1000. Pro also states that females are raped three times more than men annually supporting my claim that women are not treated equally when it comes to rape. Female Representation rebuttal The sexualization is another strawman and not my position, and can be dismissed. I discussed it in my argument, but it plays no part in this debate and should be ignored. Leaving only appearance in movies, shows, and video games which Pro freely states is not equal in writers or producers supporting my claim for movies. In video games Pro links steam as a source, however steam and mobile apps do not cover the whole demographic of video games, and Pro is dishonestly cherry picking the data to support his claim. Pro does not make an arguments that reference shows, so this claim can be dismissed. Pro is further cherry picking by not including non-video forms of entertainment such as books. Of the four topics listed Pro has not proven any to be equal 1 Wage gap – Pro misrepresents my position and try to apply factors twice 2 Equal Opportunity – Pro misrepresents my position applies the uncontrol factor of different job titles to the controlled wage gap rate which compares the same job title. 3 Rape Culture – Pro misrepresents my position as trivializing rape even after clarifying that to Pro in R1, then goes further and inflates the numbers in an attempt to discredit me. 4 Female representation – Pro misrepresents my position and then uses composition fallacy by presenting a subset of the data support his claim not including RPG which is dominated by women. Pro has repeatedly used dishonest tactics to attempt to prove his arguments, debating the 21% wage gap rather than the 5-8% wage gap, debating rape culture after I stated that was not my position, and finally exaggerating his numbers to make me look bad.

  • CON

    Please do not create a strawman and say that my position...

    Modern Feminism is Not Needed in America

    I would like to point out that you have already broken your own rules by using my name (well a misspelling of my name, but that was your intent) so I don’t expect this to be a very objective debate, but I enjoy debating so I accept. I would like to also clarify that I argued that women are raped and sexually assaulted more than men, and rape and sexual assualt is not equal between the sexes. Please do not create a strawman and say that my position is that this country has a rape culture than trivializes sexual assault and abuse. That is not by position.