Topic space view
1031 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms
  • PRO

    Instead, I will refute some of his most incorrect claims....

    Feminism

    Alright. This was destined to happen. With all of the Youtubers going on about the evils of feminism and liberalism, an echo chamber spawns, and people like my opponent are sucked in. Before I engage in this debate, I acknowledge that there are crazed high school students who dye their hair, and preach feminist ideology without having the correct knowledge to do so. It happens. But, no, I will not agree that it is the evil bane of modern life. I will argue that feminism is still important in the present day. Reading the comments, I get that I"m unlikely to win, so I"m just doing this in the the hopes of changing at least someone"s mind. Anyways, I would love to explain why a lot of the statistics my opponent has listed have complicated non-sexist reasoning, but I don't have the room for that. Instead, I will refute some of his most incorrect claims. "Men lose custody in 84% of divorces" Regardless of how accurate this statistic is, there are good reasons for why this may be the case. A comprehensive study of this was done by Cathy Meyer of the Huffington Post, and to quote it: "In 51 percent of custody cases, both parents agreed " on their own " that mom become the custodial parent. In 29 percent of custody cases, the decision was made without any third party involvement. In 11 percent of custody cases, the decision for mom to have custody was made during mediation. In 5 percent of custody cases, the issue was resolved after a custody evaluation. Only 4 percent of custody cases went to trial and of that 4 percent, only 1.5 percent completed custody litigation. In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system. How can there be a bias toward mothers when fewer than 4 percent of custody decisions are made by the Family Court? What do these statistics tell us? 1. Fathers are less involved in their children"s care during the marriage. 2. Fathers are less involved in their children"s lives after divorce. 3. Mothers gain custody because the vast majority of fathers choose to give them custody. 4. There is no Family Court bias in favor of mothers because very few fathers seek custody during divorce." So essentially, the majority of the time, the father is less involved in the raising of the child (particularly in a relationship that ends up in a divorce) and fewer fathers receive custody of their children, because they don't seek custody. Additionally, con has also made general statements without providing any statistics. "Males are discriminated against in school and University. -Boys face vastly more corporal punishment than girls." If my opponent wishes to make these statements, even the ones with provided statistics, it is his responsibility to leave sources and such. I have a strong suspicion con went onto this men"s rights website, which listed all of these stats with sourcing them. My opponent has only sourced one site, that I dare say look like it has a tiny bit of a bias. "77% of homicide victims are men." So this statistic really goes to show what side my opponent"s source is on. If you actually read the study, it states the following within it: " their risk of being killed by a spouse or intimate acquaintance was higher (RR = 1.23). In contrast to men, the killing of a woman by a stranger was rare (RR = 0.18). More than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husband or intimate acquaintance than were murdered by strangers using guns, knives, or any other means." I agree that there are issues in which men"s rights are important. This is one of those issues. However, even a study cited by a website called realsexism.com fails to run its length without mentioning a feminist issue. The 77% aspect of this also has likely complex factors which make it so. "40-70% of domestic violence is against men, however, less than 1% of domestic violence shelter spaces are for men" The problem here is, I couldn"t find this anywhere. The website you sourced also provides no link to prove this either, so it sounds like a load of crap to me. I could go on, but I am going to stop here so I can explain my opponent"s even further flawed reasoning. Currently, feminism is being mocked and scorned by many. What people who do this don"t realize, is that said high school student on Tumblr does not represent feminism as a whole. What anti-feminists will do is cherry pick certain uncommon instances where men have a disadvantage, and proceed to mock this strawman idea of a feminist rather than intellectual feminism. As you go deeper into the anti-feminist movement, you will see how quickly it turns into sexism. The actual intellectual side of feminism is what one should take as an example. Thus, I hope throughout this debate, that my opponent attempts to debunk issues widely believed by intellectual feminists instead of mocking silly-looking high school students. Before I get into that though, I fail to understand why listing men"s rights issues debunks feminism.While I think that the studies my opponent's source has referenced make a lot of simplifications and often stretch the real results I, again, accept that there are issues in which men have a disadvantage. This, however, does not mean feminism is a useless movement. I am willing to debate the wage gap with you. I mean, I hope it doesn"t become the main point of this debate, but I am willing to discuss it. In the next round, I will list some examples of women being disadvantaged in society, as my opponent has done with men. I hope we can have a rational debate, and gain some understanding of each other"s ideology. Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism/25/
    • score
      BM25 score: 22.95
      feminism: 22.95
      conclusion: 13.44 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.50)
      premises: 7.58 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.28)
      sourceText: 1.93 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.06)
  • CON

    Point 2: I. ... Sources: 1-...

    Feminism fights to harm men.

    Rebuttal to Third Argument: Point 1: I. My opponent has simply pasted sources without describing the qualities or as to how they redirect back into their argument. II. My opponent has yet again simply copy/pasted directly from this source.[1] III. My opponent has yet to answer to any of my counter arguments, or provide how the ideology of feminism is not centered around equality of the sexes. C: Feminism has yet to be shown (in this argument) that it 'fights to harm men', meaning the burden of proof has not been fulfilled. Also, if you acknowledge that there are feminists that 'want true equality' then you are conceding your argument. Point 2: I. 'Feminist' A fights to harm men, while 'Feminist' B fights for gender equality. II. A 'feminist' is, by definition, 'a person who supports feminism'. III. Feminism is, by definition, the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.[2] C: Feminist B is by definition not a feminist, whereas Feminist A by definition is a feminist. Point 3: I. My opponent's claim is that 'Feminism fights to harm men'. II. Feminism is composed of individuals that fight for gender equality, not female supremacy. C: Feminism does not fight to harm men, thus my opponent's claim is false. Sources: 1- http://anti-feminism-pro-equality.tumblr.com... 2- http://dictionary.reference.com...

  • CON

    Feminism means to abolish this social hierarchy in favor...

    Feminism fights to harm men.

    Opening Argument: To begin, i would like to define the term feminism: fem·i·nism [fem-uh-niz-uh m] noun the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.[1] I would like to mention that this definition alone already shows the resolution that 'Feminism fights to harm men' to be false. However, I will continue with my opening points. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Feminism is based around equal power distribution between the sexes, not supremacy. Feminism makes the claim that there is a hierarchy that exists that is tilted in favor of men, this is called patriarchy. Feminism means to abolish this social hierarchy in favor of gender equality between the sexes, not the supremacy of one sex. This alone is clarified in the definition of the term, and anyone who strays from this term (such as radical 'feminists' like TERFs) is by definition not a feminist, nor do they under any circumstance represent feminism. Saying such is equivalent to me saying, since one person in the state of Louisiana is a member of the Ku Klux Klan, then all people in Louisiana are members of the Ku Klux Klan. Saying that all feminists seek to harm men is baseless. Purporting that feminism ignores issues like domestic violence against men, or non-recognition of female on male rape (both of which are issues that MRAs like to throw around, but do nothing about) is also baseless. Patriarchy and imbalance of power between the sexes (and imbalance of power between classes) is what causes these instances, and is exactly what feminism is opposed to. I will rebuttal my opponents opening argument claims in the second round. I hope we can have an intelligent and meaningful debate.

  • CON

    Unlike true feminists, first-world feminists only care...

    Modern Day Feminism Has No Legitimacy.

    Best of luck to you as well. I will start my argument by stating that I myself, just as my opponent is not a 'men's rights activist', am not a feminist, or, at least, I am not a first-world feminist. I believe that in a first world environment, the only things that come anywhere close to "oppression" are illegal, and while of course they still happen they are prosecutable and therefore are not exactly fixable with a movement other than perhaps that by police. As many people will argue, the majority (if not all) of first-world feminist claims have been completely disproven. However, it is here where my opponent has made a mistake. They are referring only to first-world feminism. It is not modern feminism as a whole that is illegitimate, but first-world feminism. First-world feminism is the most prominent from of feminism, and also arguably the most pointless. Unlike true feminists, first-world feminists only care about women getting murdered when they have to use it for damage control. We don't usually hear about this larger picture of feminism, generally because instead of sitting at a computer writing articles, or marching in parades protesting against issues that aren't there, these feminists are doing something about the problems that are actually present in the world. True feminism as it exists in the modern world appears in places such as Egypt, where feminists protest alongside thousands of other revolutionists despite the risk of death that they have been reminded of time and time again, or in the Peshmerga, where men and women are fighting together against ISIL forces in the Middle East, or in any other of the Kurdish movements there, and in dozens of other examples I have not listed here. It is, putting it lightly, wildly misrepresented by first-world feminists. This type of feminism is not but one simple group as it may have seemed initially, but instead comes in many forms, such as Marxist feminism and anarcho-feminism, where with both the idea is not to blame men, but to blame and act against the system which exploits and hurts both men and women, or for example libertarian feminism (not including individualist feminism), where women and men are given the same extensive rights. You may've noticed a pattern here. Unlike first-world feminism, these forms of feminism are centered around men and women being allies or at the very least, on friendly terms, unlike the feminism we see in America and other first-world countries, where this is only a claim used for damage control and nothing more. The various forms of feminism outside of first-world have been instated as movements in America before, of course, but they eventually devolve into first-world, fail entirely due to the inherent lack of problems to deal with, or eventually merge with the movement other than feminism that they are associated with; for example anarchism or Marxism. Modern feminism is not illegitimate; It is only this first-world breed of "feminism" that has no legitimacy.

  • CON

    1st off life is not fair, And if you think it is then I'm...

    Feminism

    you say all women have a disadvantage. 1st off life is not fair, And if you think it is then I'm sorry but you would be incorrect. Second of all this statement is just completely untrue. Maybe back in the 1990s there were some scandals going on where they paid women less. But today all that fake news is getting into women's heads and setting them off and that is what created 1st off life is not fair, And if you think it is then I'm sorry but you would be incorrect. Second of all this statement is just completely untrue. Maybe back in the 1990s there were some scandals going on where they paid women less. But today all that fake news is getting into women's heads and setting them off and that is what created feminism. Also I don't get why you say they work harder. They work the same amount as men. And If they don't its because maybe some of the men in the workplace are more muscularly inclined.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism/36/
    • score
      BM25 score: 22.91
      feminism: 22.91
      conclusion: 13.44 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.50)
      premises: 7.71 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.31)
      sourceText: 1.76 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 1.88)
  • PRO

    A misdemeanor conviction can lead to jail time of up to a...

    Feminism

    Murder is murder. When Cardi B committed her crimes against various men, Even though it was supposed to be a refreshing change of stereotype, She still needs to be charged for drugging, Raping and stealing from men. For Malik St. Hilaire, I did ask for a case outside of the "Me too" movement of rape accusations, But I will respond anyways because it is the last round. She is facing a year of prison time, Which is standard for misdemeanor fraud cases. "A misdemeanor conviction can lead to jail time of up to a year, Whereas felonies and federal fraud cases can involve years or even decades in prison. " -Reference. Com One of the accused said this in court: "I lost my scholarship, My dream of continuing to play football and now I am in debt $30, 000" -New York post. Unfortunately, This is the correct sentencing for misdemeanor fraud, Which was the fact that she told a single lie that ruined two kid's lives. If she had committed fraud involving bribery, Tax evasion, Or something else that made it into a felony, She would have gotten worse. The judge sentenced Nikki to the maximum possible time she could have gotten, And backlash has occurred. " is now getting sued by the men whose lives she almost destroyed. " -thegrio. Com So, To sum that up, Nikki got the maximum possible sentence for her crimes, And will face heavy repercussions. This is exactly the equality in justice that "A misdemeanor conviction can lead to jail time of up to a year, Whereas felonies and federal fraud cases can involve years or even decades in prison. " -Reference. Com One of the accused said this in court: "I lost my scholarship, My dream of continuing to play football and now I am in debt $30, 000" -New York post. Unfortunately, This is the correct sentencing for misdemeanor fraud, Which was the fact that she told a single lie that ruined two kid's lives. If she had committed fraud involving bribery, Tax evasion, Or something else that made it into a felony, She would have gotten worse. The judge sentenced Nikki to the maximum possible time she could have gotten, And backlash has occurred. " is now getting sued by the men whose lives she almost destroyed. " -thegrio. Com So, To sum that up, Nikki got the maximum possible sentence for her crimes, And will face heavy repercussions. This is exactly the equality in justice that If she had committed fraud involving bribery, Tax evasion, Or something else that made it into a felony, She would have gotten worse. The judge sentenced Nikki to the maximum possible time she could have gotten, And backlash has occurred. " is now getting sued by the men whose lives she almost destroyed. " -thegrio. Com So, To sum that up, Nikki got the maximum possible sentence for her crimes, And will face heavy repercussions. This is exactly the equality in justice that feminism fights for, At least indirectly. In conclusion, Not all parts of feminism is bad. The type that focuses more on egalitarianism and less on the idea that women are better than men is a just type, And should be supported. As a final note, Simply because some women are falsely accusing men of sexual abuse, Doesn't mean all are, And there are still many victims that need support towards their cause.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism/34/
    • score
      BM25 score: 22.90
      feminism: 22.90
      conclusion: 13.44 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.50)
      premises: 7.48 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 1.99 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.12)
  • CON

    Being a minority does not excuse you from ruining...

    Feminism

    "But what about movements of the past? Equal pay, Equal opportunity, Equal rights. Those were in the name of feminism. " - And if I shot someone claiming feminism made me do it, Would it be a feminist action? "An argument for equality of outcome is exactly what we need, No? Outcome being how people are treated and respected on the streets. Outcome on where we end up when we start to die. " - No, This is as far from the truth as I can imagine. Both from a historical and pragmatic perspective. The only equal outcome we'll ever achieve is when we're actually all dead. Also, You're confusing equality of opportunity and equality outcome. - Individuals aren't equal, And groups are different. By attempting to create a perceived equal outcome you've stomped upon the work of one group and incentivized laziness in the other. "There is every reason for a false victim to own up to lies. Accusations destroy lives almost as much as the assaults themselves. Being a minority does not excuse you from ruining someone's life because you feel like it. " - It does if you're perceived as being oppressed by an unfair institution, Of which the accused is a part of. In fact, Under this paradigm, It's actively incentivized. "That ideal is what is wrong. If a girl wants to be like that, Nobody is stopping them. But if the girl wants to be different or wants to stand out, The fear of being looked down upon by guys or friends scares them into conforming. " - Nobody is forcing them to conform. You're also misunderstanding male vs female mating psychology. Men don't really care as much about social status as they mate across and down the hierarchy; females do the exact opposite and mate across and up the hierarchy. Women are also more socially conscientious which makes them more conformative to cultural ideals. "I argue a focused point and make it broad, But that is basically the standing ground of my argument. " - I wasn't making an argument, I was simply stating as I saw it.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism/34/
    • score
      BM25 score: 22.90
      feminism: 22.90
      conclusion: 13.44 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.50)
      premises: 7.48 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 1.99 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.12)
  • PRO

    BUT, wait it gets better, if the man confirms the...

    Feminism is not pointless

    I affirm "Resolved: Feminism is not pointless" Definitions: Feminism: the intellectual, philosophical and political discourse aimed at equal rights and legal protection for women (1) Discourse: formal discussion (2) Pointless: devoid of effectiveness (3) Observation 1: In order to keep debate fair, we must not deter to the philosophical concept that nothing has a "point", moreover it is important that we indeed accept the general cause for existence and action, hence the definition for "pointless". Besides, if nothing ever had a point to it, then logically nobody would ever be doing anything. I am just trying to avoid Chaos Theory argumentation. Observation 2: The resolution dictates that feminism is NOT pointless, meaning that the affirmative has the burden to prove said statement, and the negative must prove that feminism IS pointless. Because of this double negative topic, like all others, the burden of proof falls on the negative, as the default is that feminism is, in fact, not pointless. So, judges, keep in mind that you default AFF if the arguments wash, equal, or succeed (for the affirmative) Contention 1: "Feminism is just" As no resource is necessary to prove, women were the LAST minority to be given rights during the development of the US. African americans had their struggles with slavery, and later segregation, but ultimately the problem was solved with the granting of suffrage, unity and all other full and equal american rights to black...MALES. Women waited until the 1920's, JUST to receive their suffrage, and today they still remain absent of many rights not only in America, but ESPECIALLY across seas. Rape, discrimination, abuse and overall treatment like insects, is beyond plentiful foreign countries. An example of this is the middle-east, where things like temporary and arranged marriages are socially acceptable. Just a few days ago in Saudi Arabia, a woman was kidnapped by the son of her temporary fianc�e, raped, impregnated, beaten and kept prisoner for three years. When the man was arrested by INTERPOL, he was pending trial, however the trial cannot even be held unless the father of the abuser states that he had a relationship with this woman. BUT, wait it gets better, if the man confirms the relationship, his son gets full and complete custody of the children, if he doesn't, she is deported back to her country, where events like this are commonplace. (4) The point I am trying to make, and that any and all reasonable and moral persons will agree, is that women are less than or equal to men in societies eye at best. For this reason, it is just for any theory or organization to support the equality of all human beings, gender-blind. Contention 2: "Feminism is effective" It is clear that the feminism is effective because of how far women's rights have come over the years. Ages ago, women were treated like dirt worldwide. Tools for sex, tools for housework, tools for children. Nothing else. Until the feminist movement came along, and helped bring women closer to their goal of international human equality. Although some regions around the world still publicly and politically discriminate, massive amounts of progress has been made. I would hope that the example of US women would be enough, but to ensure my source points, look at the last couple of sources at the bottom of this text if you need more evidence (5-9). The impact of this contention is: Because we define "pointless" the way we do, having this insurmountable pile of evidence to prove that feminism is far from pointless ensures your vote for the affirmative. I apologize for not doing this earlier, but thank you so much for posting this debate. I love the topic and it's the best I've seen out of the challenge period right now, so I am honored to debate. (1) - http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) - http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) - http://www.merriam-webster.com... (4) - http://sandgetsinmyeyes.blogspot.com... (5) - http://www.guardian.co.uk... (6) - http://www.aclu-nj.org... (7) - http://www.thefreelibrary.com...'s+rights:+how+far+has+Namibia+come+in...-a0165807216 (8) - http://forum.japantoday.com... (9) - http://blog.aclu.org...

  • CON

    These sources said stuff like 'I can produce offspring....

    Is feminism necessary.

    Argument 2 "I would like to point out that in feminism no one is getting 'oppressed' or 'murdered' for not agreeing, the thing that is happening is women's rights are being attained." I"d have to disagree with both parts because Feminist are oppressing men. Because of Feminist men are even less privileged and are being stereotyped as pigs. Women have more leeway when it comes to the law. The fact that a woman can accuse her husband of sexual abuse with no facts and gain custody of her children even though she might not be unequipped to raise her children just shows how much more privileged women are. "These sources said stuff like 'I can produce offspring. A status which grants me an "essential" status in our species that men can never have and which can never be taken away from me even in old age.' This is a load of rubbish, I mean, it takes two people to make a baby, hence the male and female are both 'essential'." Even though that is true women and Feminist like to use pregnancy as an argument saying they"re the only ones who can produce offspring so that accusation is not rubbish. Unless you can disprove any of the accusation from those articles my argument for women being more privileged still stands. "Also, I would like to point out that the vast majority of women are paid less than men in the same job, some employers won't hire women in case they become pregnant and have to take maternity leave and there are still a large range of stereotypes against women. These are really important problems that need to be sorted out." If you"re talking about the wage gap, it doesn"t exist. Women on average make less because on average more women choose jobs that are part time and don"t pay as much. If women got paid less then why wouldn"t all the Corporations and businesses hire all women to save money? I know there are some stereotypes against women but there are also stereotypes against men. What Feminist like to do is take a problem that includes both women and men and make it a women"s issue when its not. "Lastly, you said at the start you don't think feminism is necessary. But I implore you to think, without feminism we might not have the vote or some of the other things we see as so normal today. Think, What would the world be like?" Sorry for not being specific. I"m referring to modern day feminism. I know what first and second wave feminism did and I appreciates that. ^w^ Why women are more privileged and why the wage gap doesn"t exist: Female privilege in action: