args

Feminism is bad

We hear about the horrors women in other countries endure everyday: rape in India, Genital Mutilation in Egypt, and sex trafficking in Europe. We feel compassion for these women, but yet we ignore the discrimination women in the United States. Discrimination against women is still a prevalent issue in today's society. Let's begin our observation of the current situation with: Observation One: Women are still being discriminated upon--this means we NEED feminism Even with strides we have taken, literally all women are discriminated upon in the U.S. When they turn 18, men in are required to register for the military draft. Women are NOT allowed to even register. This is just one example of government-sponsored sexism. There are many other examples. You are denying that women are just as capable as men and their autonomy as human beings. Additionally, women are being shot in the streets in the U.S. As a 2010 Washington Post Report points out, women are being murdered in this country at an alarming rate. In Iran, a woman in the military is more likely to be raped by a U.S. Soldier than be killed on the front lines. We need feminism to stop these harms In Observation Two I note that my opponent's arguments are flawed The first argument the pro side makes is that we have skinny girls, not "fat women", on magazine covers because that is what men are attracted to. First; that is just an excuse to cover up that he/she is being sexist in their opening speech. Second; he is assuming feminism is lobbying for heavier ladies to be on magazine covers. The real question they are asking is why should their be any magazine promoting PORNOGRAPHY. Next he/she says that feminists say "all men are pigs who treat women like crap and beat them." First; domestic violence is on the rise, according to the Crime Statistics Agency (http://www.theguardian.com...) Second; he has not provided solid proof that ANY feminist has ever said that. This is pretty obviously a conclusion that he has jumped to (a wrong one at that). What My Opponent Fails To Point Out Is That Feminism Actually Helps the World Advantage One: Feminism Boosts the Economy According to the Economist, the empowerment of career women is one of the most defining changes in the industrialized world: "Goldman Sachs calculates that, leaving all other things equal, increasing women's participation in the labor market to male levels will boost GDP by 21% in Italy, 19% in Spain, 16% in Japan, 9% in America, France and Germany and 8% in Britain." Advantage Two: Feminism Actually HELPS MEN as well as women First; Feminism has actually overturned laws that are discriminatory against men. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to treat women and men differently under the law. The case, Craig v. Boren, was filled by a plaintiff in Oklahoma over its gender-specific drinking age policy, which prohibited men from drinking before age 21, but allowed women to drink when as young as 18. This implied that men are inherently more reckless and women are more responsible. After the law was struck down, the drinking age became 21 for all. Second; it changed the definition of rape to include men. Did you know that until recently, the FBI's definition of rape was as old-fashioned as the horse and buggy? That is, until feminist activists decided to change that. Thanks to the "Rape Is Rape" campaign launched by the Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. magazine, more than 160,000 emails were sent to the FBI pressuring it to change its archaic definition of rape. The old definition, "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will," hadn't been changed since 1921. It meant that many types of sexual assaults, including the rape of men, weren't counted as part of the bureau's annual Uniform Crime Report. When the decision was announced, then-VP and General Counsel of the Feminist Majority Foundation Kim Gandy said, "This is a major policy change and will dramatically impact the way rape is tracked and reported nationwide." The new definition now includes all forms of penetration and no longer excludes men. Third; Feminism allows men to spend more time with their children. That women can bring home a pretty big chunk of change through paid work means men can work less and spend more time with their kids, something that's good for both children and their fathers. The time fathers spend with their children is not only rewarding, it's also more purposeful, and contributes to happiness more than time spent working. Thanks to feminist activism, paternity leave exists, and more men are taking advantage of it. The effects on children are immeasurable. Children who spend more time with their fathers are more likely to succeed academically and less likely to abuse drugs and be delinquent. In fact, research shows that children whose fathers can do more than 40% of chores inside the home are more likely to excel in school. Clearly, when men have the ability to spend more time at home, everyone wins. In conclusion, women are still being discriminated upon and the only way to end it is through feminism.

Feminism Should not be Encouraged

I would like to add that all I have to do to win, is state a situation where feminism should be encouraged. And, for Pro to win, he has to fulfill the Burden of Proof, to do this, he has to prove that feminism should not be encouraged in all circumstances. "You begin by giving the definiotion of feminism. To which I would argue, judge a movement based on its actions rather than its definition." The resolution: "Feminism Should not be Encouraged". I argue that my defintion is completely relevant, for the resolution is "Feminism", not the Feminist Movement. Therefore, I believe, "judge a movement based on its actions rather than its defintion", is invalid. If the resolution was "The consumption of steaks should not be encouraged", I would argue about the benefits of having steak were. However, pro would be arguing about some of the people who eat steaks. And per debate rules, if a key part was left undefined ("feminism"), the opponent can define it in the next round (as I did, "Feminism": "The advocacy of women"s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......]) "I have presented a valid list of inequalities that men are faced with. The fact that a gender equalizing campaign ignores such exmples of sexism, serves as evidence that it is a hypocritical movement. Thus, it shouldn't be encouraged. The very title "Feminism" right off the bat, establishes it as a women's first campaign and,through every one of its actions, this is proven to be the case." For the rest of pro's arguments he clearly states that there is sexism for both genders, that does not prove that feminism should not be encouraged. Definition of: Sexism: "Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex" [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...] Definition of: Feminism: "The advocacy of women"s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......] Pro bases his arguments around the fact that feminism only care for women's rights... However, the defintion of feminism is "The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." This means that feminism could also be decreasing women's rights to make equality between the sexes. Pro constructs his argument like so: Women's rights> Men's rights. Therefore, feminism should not be encouraged (Pro thinks, feminism is to be encouraged only when women's rights are<men's rights). However, this proves that feminism should be encouraged. Therefore, Pro comitted a Red Herring Fallacy: "A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: Topic A is under discussion. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). Topic A is abandoned." [http://www.nizkor.org...] I will insert this debate into the 'Red Herring Fallacy detector'! Topic A is under discussion. "Feminism Should not be Encouraged" Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). Men experience more sexism, therefore, feminism should not be encouraged. Topic A is abandoned. "Feminism Should not be Encouraged". Additional Case: 3rd World Countries. Examples of how men's rights exceed women's, therefore, feminism should be encouraged. Forbidden from driving. "In Saudi Arabia, women aren’t allowed to drive, or even ride bikes, and men aren’t allowed to drive women they’re not closely related to." Right to divorce. "In many countries, while husbands can divorce their spouses easily (often instantaneously through oral repudiation), wives’ access to divorce is often extremely limited, and they frequently confront near insurmountable legal and financial obstacles." Right to education. "In many areas of Afghanistan, girls are often taken out of school when they hit puberty." Right to travel. "Husbands in Egypt and Bahrain can file an official complaint at the airport to forbid their wives from leaving the country for any reason." Domestic violence. "Women’s unequal legal rights increase their vulnerability to violence. In many countries in the region, no specific laws or provisions exist to penalize domestic violence, even though domestic violence is a widespread problem." Custody rights. "In Bahrain, where family law is not codified, judges have complete power to deny women custody of their children for the most arbitrary reasons. Bahraini women who have been courageous enough to expose and challenge these violations in 2003 were sued for slander by eleven family court judges." Citizenship. "Most countries in the region-with the exception of Iran, Tunisia, Israel, and to a limited extent Egypt-have permitted only fathers to pass citizenship on to their children. Women married to non-nationals are denied this fundamental right." Sexual subjugation. "Many countries criminalize adult, consensual sex outside of marriage. In Morocco, women are much more likely to be charged with having violated penal code prohibitions on sexual relations outside of marriage than men. Unmarried pregnant women are particularly at risk of prosecution. The Moroccan penal code also considers the rape of a virgin as an aggravating circumstance of assault. The message is clear: the degree of punishment of the perpetrator is determined by the sexual experience of the victim." Female infanticide. "China’s one child policy has heightened the disdain for female infants; abortion, neglect, abandonment, and infanticide have been known to occur to female infants. The result of such family planning has been the disparate ratio of 114 males for every 100 females among babies from birth through children four years of age. Normally, 105 males are naturally born for every 100 females. Similarly, the number of girls born and surviving in India is significantly less compared with the number of boys, due to the disproportionate numbers of female fetuses being aborted and baby girls deliberately neglected and left to die. The normal ratio of births should be 950 girls for every 1000 boys, however in some regions the number is as low as 300." Sources for this case: [http://listverse.com...] If Pro argues that this is a religious matter, it does not mean that feminism should not be encouraged. Why I won the debate: 1. All I have to do to win, is give an example of why feminism should be encouraged. Pro said: "I will now give a quote from your agrument "It will teach kids that descrimination is wrong" To which I would respond by agreeing with your first stament." Pro agrees with one of my cases of why feminism should be encouraged, therefore, making his BoP impossible to fulfill, for he has to prove that feminism should not be encouraged in all situations. 2. Pro cannot fulfill his BoP. 3. I refuted his arguments, by proving that they were unrelated, and does not prove that feminism should not be encouraged. 4. Pro's case does not consider women's rights in 3rd world countries. 5. Redherring Fallacy was pointed out. So all in all, I have already one the debate, for Pro cannot fulfill the BoP. Thanks for the debate.

Feminism Is Cancer

"All the single ladies, All the single ladies!" Lets face it; it's a catchy tune. Don't like it..? Fine! The Lawrence Welk show reruns on PBS all the time, lamer! Regarding my opponents rhetoric above: It bears mentioning that I took this debate to repudiate a rotten advocacy. After reading through the Aff's "case" it is abundantly clear that they are conflating their own negative perceptions and/or experience with the term, "feminism." More to the point, all his remarks are purely speculative. The Aff doesn't so much as provide reasons for believing the narrative he offered is true, much less provide any evidence to support the sweeping and fallacious generalizations he makes. More specifically, the Aff is not resolutional, and puts his foot directly in the pile I cautioned about in my acceptance. I offered the definition of feminism: Feminism: ideology or social movement to define, establish and achieve equal political, economic, personal and social rights for women. **Note; conflating this definition of feminism with something more extreme should be viewed as fallacious and extra-topical. Aff conflates his own supposed experience with some self-identified feminists into a general rule that is extra topical and fallacious, a hasty generalization fallacy to be more specific. (Hurley's Logic) There is nothing inherent within feminism as defined here to advocate against a woman's right to be a wife, mother, chef, lawyer, champion bowler, expert fish angler or anything else. It doesn't inherently suppress female sexuality. What nutcase would want that!?!? All that feminism as we have defined it speaks to is equality. Any implication my opponent tries to make beyond that is superfluous dribble. Maybe he read it in Maxim magazine? Who knows. I would speculate that my opponent is engaging the availability heuristic to reach some of these ideas, but that is really neither here nor there. The point is it's all fallacious, and he isn't even consistent in that. The Aff goes as far to remark that he does not advocate for the inequality of women. That's terrific! It also means he is not upholding his burden based on the definition of feminism provided. If he wants to shift on himself and support my angle, well hell yeah, okay. "This is Wall Street Dr Burry, if you offer us free money we are going to take it." Just don't vote Aff when Aff is clearly supporting negative advocacy. Let's take a minute and address his claim that feminist support for the LGBT community is contradictory. It is not. the point of feminism is the pursuit of equality. Some or many feminists recognize the LGBT community as marginalized, and support equality for that marginalize community. Feminist support of the LGBT community makes the feminism cause and definition provided more consistent. Don't make me go PC principle bruh! I also want to respond to my opponent's stated super fav, bestie, "journalist" Milo Yiannopoulos. This guy works for Breitbart.com, and that's all you need to know. Getting news from Breitbart is like getting surgery from a drunk in a port-a-potty; not exactly recommended. So we've answered the "aff analysis" and I have about 4,900 characters left. I would like to use them to take about a few celebrities I don't like, and why. Tom Cruise: He kept Katie Holmes locked in his basement for how long..?! How this monster is still roaming free is beyond me. Wait, it must be the damned Church of Scientology. David Miscavige: If Tom Cruise is bad, David Miscavige is the devil incarnate. The guy beats his colleagues in meeting, sent his own wife off to die in a cult prison and thinks that the ghosts of aliens make people park in two spots. Sean Hannity: Witless garbage peddling turd. Also, his favorite food is the speech center of a dolphin's brain. That kind of evil can't be seen at a Slayer concert. Miley Cyrus: She's not country. I don't care! Yes the Jolene cover was great, but it would be stupid to call her country for that one song and her insipid show from a decade ago. If I put on a Fez and speak with a British accent it doesn't make me Dr Who. Dinesh D'Souza: Narcissism pretending to be informed. He must have taught Hannity's classes at Oral Roberts University. Grumpy Cat: How can you be that pissed when you've never worked a day in your life? His mood is clearly faked for PR. There's many more.