Topic space view
1031 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms
  • CON

    In the regions of the Middle East and North Africa, East...

    Women leaders have a secret agenda to establish a Matriarchy, using feminism as a guiding force

    Alright. This is my first debate on this site, so I'm nervous right now, especially since I'm generally insecure about my debating skills. Nevertheless, I will do my best. Good luck to both you and me. Before I argue those claims in detail, let me point out that you are severely misunderstanding the meaning of feminism. Your (common) understanding of feminism is female rights over male rights, while the proper and most basic definition of feminism is gender equality. Dictionary.com's longer definition of feminism is "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." Please do get that right, the definition isn't subjective! It seems that one of your main claims is that systemic sexism doesn't currently exist, and has instead reversed in favor of females. Systemic oppression of females has always and still exists at different levels all around the world. Sure, sexism towards men may have existed, but systemic oppression toward males has never and does not exist. The ultimate goal of feminists is to achieve gender equality, anything that surpasses that--that is, when one gender's powers and rights exceeds the other's--is no longer feminism, but gender-based oppression. Thus, women cannot "use feminism to establish matriarchy" or undermine male power/rights. That is now oppression, which, again, doesn't exist for men because women globally are not yet even "economically, politically, and socially equal to men" as you (and whoever you got that information from) say they are. Not even in the United States. In the regions of the Middle East and North Africa, East Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, only 17%, 19%, 27%, 19%, 23%, respectively, of their parliaments are held by women in 2014 (http://datatopics.worldbank.org...). In the hypothetical situation that there is an equal representation of both genders in any parliament, both genders would of course comprise of about half of any parliament's members. Yet women's presence in contemporary parliaments rarely even exceed 25%. Now consider the gender pay gaps that also exists globally: (http://www.theguardian.com...) In all the major countries of the world, women are paid less than men, which is quintessential of gender inequality. With and because of these gender gaps, women continue to be seen as less than men, and thus will continue to be oppressed by them. And while oppression towards women remains existent, women continue to risk gender-based violence, which several times are unjustly overlooked by authorities, leaving women to suffer longer than they need to. Consider the female rape victims around the world that don't receive public sympathy simply because they are female. That is, because females tend to be seen as sluts, and because of it, deserve to be raped. That's 1 in 5 females in the U.S. alone who are at such a risk (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). Additionally, 30% of women who have been in a relationship experienced sexual or phsyical violence by their partner (http://www.who.int...). And around the world (mostly in Iran, India, and Pakistan, where systemic oppression towards women are the most dangerous), there are about 1,500 acid-attacks primarily on women and children, where acid is deliberately thrown on their faces by men (http://www.bbc.com...). Such injustice occurs because women aren't empowered, which is precisely why we need feminism; so that women's rights can no longer be abused and so that women can be seen as equal to men. The fact that you believe gender inequality no longer exists is, to me, extraordinarily baffling and quite ludicrous, so I apologize for throwing all those statistics at you, but I felt they were most necessary. Please research more into it, rather than creating hypotheticals! This is a genuine request. To paraphrase a large part of our argument, you also believe that women--at least those in power--are oppressive, narrow-minded, fascistic, and somehow plotting together to undermine male rights and powers in "secret" So you're saying that no one but females, primarily, know that this plan, or "agenda," exists and are all working together in support of it. But I am female, my strongly feminist friends are female, and many of my feminist teachers are female. I live in a largely liberal area, and I have never heard of such endeavors, nor have I even imagined it! Again, feminists don't wish to undermine men's rights/powers; if they do, then they aren't feminists at all. You referred to Hillary Clinton as a part of this "agenda" but here's a quote from her: "If women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish. And when families flourish, communities and nations will flourish" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). Here, Hillary Clinton does not at all wish to overpower men, but simply to rid of any existing gender inequality in disfavor of women and stand alongside of men as "equal partners in society." You also mentioned that "if a women such as Hillary Clinton would have to give back presidential office to the hands of the 'oppressive' patriarchy, she could cancel presidential elections by stripping your constitutional rights through the logical fallacy that is Martial Law." First of all, she was never the president; in fact, as you very well know, there has never been a female president, hence why feminism exists in the first place. Second, I can assure you that she, and any other president, will never be able to commit such totalitarianistic actions given the strictly structured government the Framers created for the US. Our government's three branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--are all checked and balanced by each other. The executive branch (which includes the president) doesn't possess any formal legislative powers besides his veto power. There is the executive agreement, which allows the president to make treaties without congressional consent, and the executive order, which allows the president to make law also without congressional approval. But both aren't very powerful arguments as one is irrelevant; the other, rare, highly scrutinized, and lacks enough power to actually "cancel presidential elections," which would undeniably undermine the Constitution, which then could easily be grounds for a presidential impeachment. In fact, if Obama had any real legislative powers, he would have been able to pass so many of his laws, but he is mostly rendered inefficient and incapable of doing anything because of the largely Republican Congress (the legislative branch) that almost always opposes him and his proposed legislations. So no, women, just like males, cannot so easily undermine the very scared doctrine that is the Constitution. The closest way of doing so would be interpreting the Constitution, which only the Supreme Court has the power to do. I am concerned about your cruel (and quite offensive) depiction of feminist women as oppressive, narrow-minded, and fascistic. Feminists only wish for equality; if you see any woman, or anyone for that matter, advocating for a single gender's rights over those of the other, then by all means, call them out. But that's not what feminists are. And yes, women may "favor one social aspect and execute another," just like any person may. Not all women agree on the same exact set of beliefs--by implying so, you are stereotyping women. All individual women have their own set of beliefs distinct from other women. Of course, large groups of women may agree on some things, but again, large groups of people in general do. And woman can't well execute their beliefs because they don't dominate the media, like you said they do, since women only make up a mere 30% of the total journalists in the US. (http://www.theguardian.com...)

  • CON

    However, the wage gap does not account for the following...

    Feminism is necessary in modern day United States.

    Alright then. Round two begins. I keep this simple, since it is only the first round. I would first like to point out that I am all for equality between men and women, and that I myself am female. In fact, if feminists actually stayed true to their morals, I'd call myself a feminist. First off, I would like to address why the movement is unneeded in the U.S. Secondly, I will explain how feminism is now corrupted with dogma. Finally, I'll discuss the good things feminists could do if they focused on underprivileged women in third world countries rather than a false wage gap and the inevitable sexual desires of men. Many feminists claim that the wage gap is a reason why feminism is still needed in America. However, the wage gap does not account for the following the fact that men are more likely to pursue STEM jobs, which pay more [1], and that women take off work for maternity. In fact, if you compare childless men to women under 30, women make $1.08 on a man's dollar. [2] Women also receive lesser sentences than men for the same crimes. [3] Most importantly, there are no rights men have that are denied to women, and there are laws protecting them from being discriminated against. Next, I would like to discuss the feminists who have given this movement a bad name: - Amanda Childress thinks that men accused of rape should be considered guilty until proven innocent. - Robin Morgan believes hating men is honorable. - Andrea Dworkin wants to see a man beaten and gagged. - Sheila Cronin believes marriage is slavery, and Andrea Dworkin believes it is rape. - Sharon Stone wants to use her power to hurt men. - Catherine MacKinnon believes that if a woman doesn't like sex, even if she consented, she was raped. - Jodie Foster believes that women are victims by nature. - Susan Griffin believes a vast majority of men are rapists. - David Angier believes women shouldn't be punished for trying to get men falsly arrested. - Catherine Comins believes man who are falsely accused of rape can learn from the experience. - Barbara Jordan believes men are incapable of compassion. - Sally Miller Gearhart believes that the population of men should be reduced to 10%. Mary Daly wants the male population to be reduced as well. It seems that more and more people are adhering to these feminist hierarchs. Even the feminists who aren't radical pay no heed to the issues men face and have at least a little bit of misandrist values instilled in them by notorious radical and semi-radical feminists who exaggerate issues and even directly lie to the women they are trying to help in order to evoke emotion. On top of all that, these radial feminists are the same people who tell first world women they are victims of the "patriarchy," start charities benefiting the most privileged women on earth, and completely forget about women and girls who are actually being oppressed. Then, when you tell them their movement is useless, they will remind you about all the females in third world countries that need their help. Instead of helping, they complain about it on Tumblr, and even have the audacity to lump these poor women's problems in with their own. I know not all feminists are like this, but many are, and their voices are loud. Too loud. Sometimes their voices can drown out the wales of women in need. I will now present to you an example: Lets talk about a online video series outspoken feminist Anita Sarkeesian is raising money for. It is called Ordinary Women: Daring to Defy History, which as of May 31, 2016, Sarkeesian has raised $207,138 for it to be made. Remember that, because she herself states, "In an astounding, humbling turn of events, Tropes vs Women in Video Games drew international attention"both positive and negative"and Feminist Frequency raised over twenty-five times the amount we sought. We put it to good use: in the four years since, Feminist Frequency has transformed into a non-profit organization devoted to critically engaging with media." [4] Did she put it to good use? What she promised to do with to money she got was create a series of twelve videos about how women are portrayed in video games. The videos she promised are as follows: The Damsel in Distress, The Fighting Fucktoy, The Sexy Sidekick, The Sexy Villan, Women as Background Decorations, Voodoo Priestess/Tribal Sorceress, Women as Reward, Mrs. Male Character, Unattractive = Evil, Man With Boobs, Positive Female Characters, and The Top 10 Most Common Defenses of Sexism in Games. As of March 8, 2016, she has made three. Sarkeesian said she needed $6,000 all twelve videos, she raised $158,922 for them, and in four years, she has made three of the twelve videos. [5] The worst part about all of this, it that she is tricking deluded feminists into putting money right in her pocket. Don't let the fact that it is labeled as a non-profit trick you into thinking she didn't get any money. [6] All of that money she made could have gone to girls who are forced into marriage and treated as objects in countries where women have limited rights, and instead western feminists trick women (and themselves) into believing they are victims even if they aren't Citations: [1] http://www.pbs.org...... [2] http://miamioh.edu...... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... [4] https://www.seedandspark.com...... [5] [6] http://990s.foundationcenter.org...

  • PRO

    Therefore, in the interest of humankind to survive, a...

    Feminism is based upon female entitlement to male achievements.

    I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Prior to the presentation of my argument, Con has asserted that any individual who regards themselves as feminist must hold the belief of my proposition. As such, this is a fallacy of division and is irrelevant to this discourse. As Pro, I assume the burden of proof in the resolution and Con will attempt to refute my arguments as such that feminism is not based on female self-entitlement to male achievements. The defining proposition of this debate is predicated around feminism's most basic logical fallacy: If all people deserve equal political, economic, and social rights, people exist together successfully. Females exist together successfully. Therefore, females deserve equal political, economic, and social rights. Categorically, there is a flaw in this ideological self-entitlement. Notice that roughly half of the human species is not represented by feminism. Therefore, feminists lay claim to equal treatment without having to reciprocate. This has been accomplished in a myriad of ways, which will be defined throughout this discourse. Argument 1: Human Biology defines Human Needs Citing the non-aggression principle, one may arrive at this conclusion about the difference between human needs and human wants: 1. If satisfying a human need is physiologically necessary to physical and psychological health, then lack of provision and protection to humans results in physical and psychological deprivation. 2. Wanting or preferential behavior is negatively correlated with physical and psychological deprivation. 3. Therefore, provision and protection are universally human needs which take priority over wanting or preferential behavior. Argument #2: Complimentary Opposites If male and female exist as anatomically complimentary to one another as per biology, then each of the sexes is of a specific physiological disposition in nature, and thus, human biology has assigned them basic jobs to be performed in the cycle of life and death. Males, given the task of provision and protection, serve as agents of death (e.g. hunting/killing game, warriors, etc.). Females, given the task of birth and nurturing, serve as agents of life (e.g. live birth, care-takers, etc.). Therefore, in the interest of humankind to survive, a union must be struck between agents of death and agents of life. This union has been historically called the family, and it describes a specific, role-based architecture incorporated out of necessity rather than cosmetic appeal. However, it is important to denote the distinctions in agency between the sexes before addressing the family structure. Male biology, by default, is a competitive altruistic agency[1] which entails personal sacrifice for the common good out of necessity. As the agent of death, the male biology expresses itself via a significantly higher proportion of testosterone when compared to females, as the average daily production of it is 20 times higher. Features are increased bone and muscle mass as well as facial hair while the key behavioral feature is increased risk-taking. The brains of males are also physically larger – myelinated fiber (white brain matter) length is approximately 176,000 km, whereas female reaches 149,000 km. Testosterone production directly increases attention, memory, and spatial capacity.[2] Given this context, males are genetically predisposed to perform risky tasks which require strength, agility, and dexterity in the physical dimension; in the mental, males possess higher capacities of focus, information recall, and third-dimensional imagery. By combining powerful physiology with tactical psychology, one arrives at the conclusion that males do the hunting, hard work, and remain stoic. Therefore, as the competitively altruistic male biology dictates, the abilities males are born into are valuable, however, the male is without intrinsic value and must demonstrate it by his utility in furthering the human race. Self-interested behavior in men bares heavy consequences in society. Conversely, female biology, by default, is a self-interested agency, in that females must survive for humanity to thrive out of necessity. As the agent of life, the distinction to be made is that each individual female is intrinsically valuable by nature of her biology. The uterus and ovaries along with a thicker corpus callosum connecting the hemispheres of the female brain are her vital differences from her male counterpart. A more empathetic disposition, an emphasis on acting with the consensus, and the nurturing behaviors of breast-feeding and child-rearing all demonstrate a more proportionate ratio of testosterone to estrogen in the female physiology. Thus, where the female is praised for expressing her sense of self and self-interest, the male is berated to remain stoic and to hone his abilities as a societal and evolutionary reminder that he exists solely for the purpose of female survival. From this complimentary balance, two truths are born: there must be a leader and a follower to every human relationship, and that if one is to be a leader, one must be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect his follower(s): one's own life. Argument #3: Biological Theft As it is in the best interest of humanity that females survive at all costs, the ones who must bear that cost are the males. In return for his life, the female reciprocates with her service. I have now defined the architecture of the family: a father as leader and a mother as follower. History builds a vivid picture of what male achievements constitute: Formal logic, which this debate hinges upon, was conceived by a group of competitively altruistic males as it became a necessity in the growing Greek populace to discern truth from falsehood, to provide an empirical and standard method of forming critical thought, and to create the foundation upon which the modern legal format stands. History does not remember these males on the simple predicate that they were men: it remembers them because they conquered new ground and achieved for all humankind. Skyscrapers reaching 100+ stories appear on several continents. Infrastructures such as road, rail, canal, and air-travel have been tested and refined for thousands of years - resulting in the losses of untold numbers of males in their testing phases and constructions. Electricity. Pasteurization. Computers. Automobiles. Radio. Glass. Vaccination. Republics. Combustion. Television. Internet. Physics. Economics. Geography. Science. And most importantly, males gave birth to the concept of freedom. And that cost was high. This and every creation, mental or physical, is founded upon this innate male agency to provide provision or protection to society, and through that end, foster a male achievement. 1. If male sacrifice provisions and protects modern society and a comfortable standard of living for humans, then modern life is comfortable. 2. Feminists deserve all the rights of males, including male careers, male decisions, and male sexuality. 3. Therefore, male sacrifice is unnecessary. I pose this thought in the rhetorical: remove all male sacrifice in today's modern society. What's left? In the event that the female should choose to disrupt biology and perform all the duties of a male and all the duties of a female, she has committed to what is defined above as self-entitlement. Male self-entitlement to other males' achievements produces jealousy, larceny, grand theft, corruption, dictatorship, and warfare predicated on invasion. Female self-entitlement to males' achievements produces feminism. Thus, female self-entitlement is based upon male achievements. [1] http://www.epjournal.net... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

  • PRO

    They are not demanding a lowering of standards, they're...

    Feminism equality has been achieved these are just women looking for handouts

    Pro will address the following: - Women can work the same jobs as men. - Women are not physically able to join certain military jobs. Notice that the pro is not addressing the point of age, pay or personal freedom anymore, please refer to the comments for further information on that. http://usnews.nbcnews.com... Extend all evidence from Round 2 to this round as con has failed to disprove a single one. In addition, review the evidence offered this debate through the usnews.nbcnews link. As the link shows, a female veteran of our armed forces believes that some women in the military are more than capable of beating the tests. They are not demanding a lowering of standards, they're saying that they can beat men at their own game but aren't allowed to. This invalidates the Cons arguments of lessening our special forces abilities. Summary As even with the modified resolution the pro has still succeeded in proving that women are not allowed to hold certain jobs which by the pros definition of They are not demanding a lowering of standards, they're saying that they can beat men at their own game but aren't allowed to. This invalidates the Cons arguments of lessening our special forces abilities. Summary As even with the modified resolution the pro has still succeeded in proving that women are not allowed to hold certain jobs which by the pros definition of Summary As even with the modified resolution the pro has still succeeded in proving that women are not allowed to hold certain jobs which by the pros definition of feminism makes the status between men and women that of inequality, there can be no other ballot than for that of the pro.

  • PRO

    There is nothing wrong with sex-role differentiation. ......

    Feminism promotes an unnatural equality between the sexes. There is nothing wrong with sex-role dif...

    Feminism promotes an unnatural equality between the sexes. There is nothing wrong with sex-role differentiation. Men and women are biologically different, and these differences are what have led to women’s dominance of the private sphere, home life and childrearing, and men’s dominance of public life, the workplace and political authority. All of these are essential to a functional society, and the division of labour on the basis of sex is an entirely sensible principle of social order. There is a distinction between enshrining equality of pay, democratic representation and opportunity in law, and actively encouraging women to reject their traditional, and in many cases preferred, gender roles. Women are, in general, more fulfilled by motherhood than by career success.

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/2701-feminism/
    • score
      BM25 score: 14.68
      feminism: 14.68
      conclusion: 4.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 0.55)
      premises: 7.71 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.31)
      sourceText: 2.00 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.14)
  • CON

    That this enterprise is often successful is not an...

    Many women no longer identify themselves as feminists, associating feminism with man-hating, sex-hat...

    Opponents of the feminist movement have always sought to stereotype feminists in order to reduce their support. That this enterprise is often successful is not an argument against feminism; in any case, many of the women who dislike the label ‘feminist’ turn out to hold what would until recently have been seen as extreme feminist views, such as the belief that women are perfectly capable of competing with men on equal terms. Feminists have always argued that women are just as capable of men; they have campaigned against legal, cultural and social barriers which have worked against women, preventing them from achieving equality.

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/2701-feminism/
    • score
      BM25 score: 14.68
      feminism: 14.68
      conclusion: 4.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 0.55)
      premises: 7.71 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.31)
      sourceText: 2.00 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.14)
  • CON

    In fact, your choice is so influential that it makes it...

    The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

    I feel my opponent might be chasing his tail a little. Like a dog who forgot where he buried his bone, my opponent seems to think that the holes he made trying to find it, are just as good a proof as the bone itself. NOPE!!!! And oh, how effective his "nodody is an island" spiel was. I ate it up like cheetos. But after reading his argument, I'm still not quite sure how he thinks public attitudes affect our relationships. I can't blame him though, rational people (like ourselves) are not easily swayed by silly wankerisms. Look, it's simple. If you prefer a traditional relationship with your spouse, that's YOUR choice of how YOU feel the household should be run. If your spouse rejects your notion of a well kept, functional household, that would be HER choice. If you choose to quarrel because of your disagreement, that would be both your choices and society has no say in any of it. Your choice is the most influential factor in all these situations. In fact, your choice is so influential that it makes it impossible for public attitudes to affect you, unless you accept public opinion as an influence, and even then, it's still YOUR choice to accept it's influence. I don't think my opponent realizes it, but when you boil his argument down, he's actually saying that the problem is that women DO have equal rights! Thankfully my opponent agrees that women should have equal rights, but his argument is based on the idea that because women are actually exercising their equality in relationships, that's what causes the "negative impact". That's pretty much the meat and potatoes of this debate. My opponent thinks that a quick peruse through the world wide web will show obvious evidence of the breakdown of traditional relationships (which I will call "armagrelashionship". Ok, maybe not). I must not be looking in the right place because I haven't found any proof of that. My opponent tried using a vague "study" done over a decade ago that says "satisfaction in life has decreased and flatlined in both the US and Britain". Shame on him for trying to use that as evidence of dissatisfaction in relationships, it doesn't really even have anything to do with this argument, it has to do with satisfaction in life as a whole. I'm confused on how satisfaction in life can flatline anyway. Like, what does that even mean? If I was a Russian soldier in the battle for Stalingrad and I just got captured by the Germans and was being sent to a prisoner of war camp, perhaps then my satisfaction in life would flatline, but a couple skirmishes with the old lady won't make me wanna snuff it. Perhaps I should apologize to my opponent for not specifying that I'm not a woman. I am a married father of two girls. We do not, I can't stress this enough, DO NOT teach our daughters to be ashamed of housework. In fact, doing the housekeeping is probably the main reason we had kids! My wife identifies as a feminist. She works full time now, but when she didn't, she always kept the house clean. Now that she works full time, we have to share the chores, and I have no problem with that! I can't think of any instances when we taught our children to hate the masculine traits I have and since they're girls, obviously we teach them to love their feminine traits. My older daughter plays football (American football, not soccer), and she's awesome. It seems that all my opponent and I have to use as references are our own relationships, which aren't very broad ranging. My argument hinges on the belief that your additude toward your spouse and your situation are far more influential than In fact, your choice is so influential that it makes it impossible for public attitudes to affect you, unless you accept public opinion as an influence, and even then, it's still YOUR choice to accept it's influence. I don't think my opponent realizes it, but when you boil his argument down, he's actually saying that the problem is that women DO have equal rights! Thankfully my opponent agrees that women should have equal rights, but his argument is based on the idea that because women are actually exercising their equality in relationships, that's what causes the "negative impact". That's pretty much the meat and potatoes of this debate. My opponent thinks that a quick peruse through the world wide web will show obvious evidence of the breakdown of traditional relationships (which I will call "armagrelashionship". Ok, maybe not). I must not be looking in the right place because I haven't found any proof of that. My opponent tried using a vague "study" done over a decade ago that says "satisfaction in life has decreased and flatlined in both the US and Britain". Shame on him for trying to use that as evidence of dissatisfaction in relationships, it doesn't really even have anything to do with this argument, it has to do with satisfaction in life as a whole. I'm confused on how satisfaction in life can flatline anyway. Like, what does that even mean? If I was a Russian soldier in the battle for Stalingrad and I just got captured by the Germans and was being sent to a prisoner of war camp, perhaps then my satisfaction in life would flatline, but a couple skirmishes with the old lady won't make me wanna snuff it. Perhaps I should apologize to my opponent for not specifying that I'm not a woman. I am a married father of two girls. We do not, I can't stress this enough, DO NOT teach our daughters to be ashamed of housework. In fact, doing the housekeeping is probably the main reason we had kids! My wife identifies as a feminist. She works full time now, but when she didn't, she always kept the house clean. Now that she works full time, we have to share the chores, and I have no problem with that! I can't think of any instances when we taught our children to hate the masculine traits I have and since they're girls, obviously we teach them to love their feminine traits. My older daughter plays football (American football, not soccer), and she's awesome. It seems that all my opponent and I have to use as references are our own relationships, which aren't very broad ranging. My argument hinges on the belief that your additude toward your spouse and your situation are far more influential than feminism. Perhaps my opponent is a snot, and expects his spouse to do all the cooking and cleaning and leave him free for his manly pursuits, like getting drunk at the pub and watching football (soccer). Perhaps she's not a very nice person and refuses to help out at all. Or maybe like BB king said, the thrill is gone. I don't think feminism plays that big of a role in those situations, perhaps your both just mean people. (I hope that wasn't offensive. I just meant it for the sake of the argument) My opponent suggested that I was arguing that males and females have no differences?!? I call on my opponent to come up with a quote in any of my arguments that shows that I actually feel that way. I may let my daughters do things that were traditionally considered "boy things" in the past, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the many obvious differences between males and females. So obvious that I don't think it should have been brought up, but my opponent never ceases to amaze us. By the way, I wasn't insulting your grammar, I was insulting your observations. Trust me, I'd be the last guy to insult someones grammar. I've met glue sniffing addicts with better grammar than me! I would like to thank my opponent for such an interesting debate, and am very pleased no meet you as well. Good luck, mate!

  • PRO

    Pro is prohibited from using lawyering methods of...

    Official March Beginner's Tournament 2016 Round 2: Feminism is Beneficial to the Modern World.

    Full Resolution: On balance, Feminism is Beneficial to the Modern World. Modern/Modernity (http://www.businessdictionary.com...) Characteristics of modern (post second World War) societies that have capitalistic economies and democratic political structures, and are highly industrialized and divided into social classes based on economic status. These characteristics include regular pattern of everyday life, urbanization, influx of women at all levels of employment and business, secular outlook, sexual freedom, sharp reduction in birth rate and death rate, centralized bureaucratic government, standardized education system, and pervasive use of technology specially in communications. Feminism (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Organized self-identified/self-proclaimed feminist activity in support of women's rights and interests. Structure: Round 1: Acceptance ONLY Round 2: Arguments Round 3: Arguments and Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals and Conclusion There shall be no semantics in this debate. Both sides are prohibited from debating and overhauling definitions. if you have any concern regarding the definitions, raise them now before the debate commences. Pro is prohibited from using lawyering methods of scapegoating, such as shifting between different feminist stances. If Pro violates this rule and refutes Con by using such infraction, Pro will forfeit the entire debate. Both sides are not allowed to raise new arguments in the last round. This debate is issued as part of the Beginner's Tournament (http://www.debate.org...). Only someloser(http://www.debate.org...) can accept this debate. If someone other than him manages to accept this challenge, that person will forfeit the entire debate. Once the challenge is issued, the contender may accept whenever he is ready. ===== Both of us are fellow proteges of the ancient Cody_Franklin who as we believe right now is currently lurking for a revival. It was prophesied that only one of us may remain as his protege. I intend to make that title mine. Time for you to lose, someloser. Kissing his feet should be my prize, not yours. That said, RAWR!!!

  • PRO

    In another study the CDC lists male victims of domestic...

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

    Rebuttals a1. I provided evidence, very much so. "Just because men cannot get pregnant, doesn't automatically make them rapists and unable to be raped" is an anti-"all male are rapists" argument. I don't understand how my opponent misread/misunderstood that statement so badly. I do not fall victim to my own point. a2. That has nothing to do with 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminism. She is, if anything, a 1st wave feminist, but that does not make what she did anything close to feminism in any way. This debate is about 2nd and 3rd wave feminism. a3. There is something wrong with the VAWA, it only protects women, when men are the overwhelming majority of rape victims, and a large portion of domestic violence and abuse victims. Men are also 2x more likely to be raped/assaulted by a stranger. Evidence of the above rebuttal.^: 1.)Men are :76% of homicide victims " DOJ 2.)Men are the overwhelming majority of rape victims Male rape has been called "The most closely guarded secret of American prisons." (Weiss and Friar 1974) There are estimated to be over 300,000 male rapes per year in American prisons and jails. http://www.loompanics.com... 2.)Male rape victims of female rapists. 2.1% of men reported forced vaginal sex compared to 1.6% of women in a relationship in the previous year. From: Predictors of Sexual Coersion. http://pubpages.unh.edu... 3.)94% of sexually abused youth in correctional facilities reported being abused by female staff. From: Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities, 2008-09. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... 4.)50% of homeless youth reported being sexually abused by a female. From: It"s Not What You Think: Sexually Exploited Youth in British Columbia http://www.nursing.ubc.ca... 5.)Among inmates reporting staff sexual misconduct, ~ 65% reported a female aggressor. From: Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... 6.)Women abusers This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600. http://www.csulb.edu... That harassment is a systemic problem with origins that emanate from academe. Dr. Murray Straus, an internationally recognized expert on intimate partner violence published the following paper outlining the various ways that feminist ideologues suppress data and research on IPV that demonstrates gender symmetry in its incidence. http://pubpages.unh.edu... Men are fully half of the victims of domestic violence (26% of intimate partner homicides), yet are denied service at most tax payer funded domestic violence shelters. In another study the CDC lists male victims of domestic violence at more than 34%, but men injured in Iraq (and all other men) are by law in California excluded from domestic violence shelter services. Only one shelter in Lancaster, CA accepts men and it has been extensively harassed for doing so. In 2008, overall rates of police-reported violent victimization were comparable between men and women, but the nature of their victimization differed. In that year, men were more likely than women to be victims of the most serious forms of physical assault (levels 2 and 3) and have a weapon used against them. Men were almost twice as likely to be the victims of assault level 2 than women (215 versus 114 per 100,000); Though aggravated assault (level 3) occurs much less frequently than the less serious forms of assault, the rate of aggravated assault for men is over three times greater than that of women (18 versus 5 per 100,000) Young men under the age of 18 are 1.5 times more likely to be physically assaulted than young girls. Male victims were most often physically assaulted by a stranger or by someone else outside of the family. In 2008, men were the victims of 80% of all reported attacks by strangers. Men were more likely to be robbed than women. They were victims in 65% of robberies in 2008. Male teens aged 15 to 17 reported the highest robbery rates among all child and youth age groups and nearly 1.5 times higher than the rate for men aged 18 to 24. Men were more likely than women to be a homicide victim, accounting for almost three quarters (74%) of homicide victims during a 5-year period between the years 2004 to 2008. More than one-third of male victims of homicide were killed with a firearm, compared to one fifth of female homicide victims. Men were 2.5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted in an institutional setting (school, non-commercial or non-corporate area) than women. So how is my argument that the VAWA is a sexist and unneeded law "unsupported"? If anything we need a VAMA law. a4. The articles directly correlate with the evidence. I am guessing you didn't bother to click them. You cannot conclude that, because only the first argument does not seem to be from an article that it is 1.) false 2.) all arguments are false or 3.) that all statements must be disregarded. The first one correlates to the first link. Actually, the evidence supports the claim that many feminists responded in this way. a5. The quotes are an argument, and they all identify as feminists (notably from the 2nd and 3rd waves and the 3rd wave is modern day). Those feminists are the most widely known and most powerful (and the leaders) of the movement and feminists follow them. (some of) Your quotes are also sexist towards men as are mine, which only proves my point. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.) My opponent provided no new arguments and that should result in a deduction of conduct points. My opponent also used incorrect grammar (e.g. "your" when "you're" would be correct), which should result in a deduction of correct/good grammar points. 2.) Feminists often say there is a pay gap between men and women. This is false. I will provide evidence as to why the gender pay gap is a complete myth Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more. Top 10 most dangerous jobs (from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics): Fishers, loggers, aircraft pilots, farmers and ranchers, roofers, iron and steel workers, refuse and recyclable material collectors, industrial machinery installation and repair, truck drivers, construction laborers. They're all male-dominated jobs. Men are far more likely to work in higher-paying fields and occupations (by choice). According to the White House report, "In 2009, only 7 percent of female professionals were employed in the relatively high paying computer and engineering fields, compared with 38 percent of male professionals." Professional women, on the other hand, are far more prevalent "in the relatively low-paying education and health care occupations." Men are far more likely to take work in uncomfortable, isolated, and undesirable locations that pay more.Men work longer hours than women do. The average full-time working man works 6 hours per week or 15 percent longer than the average full-time working woman. Men are more likely to take jobs that require work on weekends and evenings and therefore pay more. Even within the same career category, men are more likely to pursue high-stress and higher-paid areas of specialization. For example, within the medical profession, men gravitate to relatively high-stress and high-paying areas of specialization, like surgery, while women are more likely to pursue relatively lower-paid areas of specialization like pediatrician or dentist. Despite all of the above, unmarried women who've never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men, according to Nemko and data compiled from the Census Bureau. 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. This proves that the 2nd and 3rd waves of feminism fight for a nonexistent claim and are actually fighting to earn more than men. 3.) Chivalry when they like it, Sexism when they don't. Example: "I'm the man I'll pay"=liked "I work more than that woman, but we get payed the same wage. I deserve a raise because I work harder and get more done!"=hated/seen as sexism due to feminism in society. 4.) Feminists always assume they know what is best and that they are always right in the way to do things. I understand that some (if any) feminists have good intentions, but they are carrying them out in a totally wrong way that hurts men, women, families, and society.

  • PRO

    If not then you fit into a minority of cultural practices...

    The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

    First of all, welcome to my debate; I am excited to continue and are very pleased to meet you. I think I will try and address your argument piece by piece in a chronological fashion. "My opponents entire argument is based on shallow, generalizations on the difference between men and women, however there's no scientific evidence or statistics to back his claims. All the reader is left with are relative, cliche "observations" based solely from the point of view of my opponent." In what format would you prefer the citation? I will continue with APA for now. There are many significant distinctions between males and females, within numerous areas of distinction. For instance: in brain hormone function (e.g. Nishizawa, 1997; Giedd, 2012), sexual behaviour and preference (Carrol, 1985) and across a wide range of personality measures (Hyde, 2014). There are studies galore to be found highlighting differences, I don"t think it"s a controversial topic; it is also assumtion held by every culture known to man for thousands of years. Also, its pretty self-evident from life experience that males are different from females, though its "un-scientific" it doesn"t make it false. As you are the one making the radical assumption that males and females have no differences, I feel the burden of proof lies with you. This point about life experience I want to come back to at the end and relate it to your last argument. Use of the word "driving seat", I understand it needs some explanation; it was not a good choice of words. What I mean is that males are more suited to the external family situation (job, money, future plans) and so from the outside could be considered in "control" of the family. I do not mean that men should hold any power over a women or be able to hit them or anything ridiculous like that. Lets be serious here and stop boxing off the world into devil people and Saints: the word is more nuanced. Women and men should be equal in rights of course. (http://www.actforlibraries.org...) Here is a quote from a meta-analytical study of gender differences: "In reality nature has designed the two genders to have compatible, but differing psychological strengths, simply to ensure that a suitable balance is achieved in the male/female relationship" "if my opponent could prove that women are "less stable then men", or "people are less happy than ever in relationships" Women less stable than men: The world health organisation, over a huge meta-analytical study found overwhelmingly that women suffered greater from mental health problems (up to 40% more), (World Health Organization; 2002). People less happy than ever in relationships: Peoples relationships are shorter than ever now; look it up in two seconds you will find evidence. Blanchflower (2004) found that since the 70s, satisfaction in life has decreased and flatlined in both the US and Britain. Its hard to demonstrate correlation, however studies show how the more egalitarian a couple is, the more conflict within the relationship and the lesser lifespan expected (Kaufman, 2000). Science is limited in its ability to prove that people are less happy in relationships but it does show that conflict is increased and length of the relationship is decreased. This may be an indication that satisfaction levels are lower. "Our relationships are not publicly influenced" "My opponent so far has failed to show how public attitudes can effect private relationships" Now this is gross misconception, but a common one. I think "can"t see the wood for the tree"s" is the quickest way to explain your error here; in my view. You think your not influenced by the wider society in your relationship? I would go out on a limb here and suggest that 90% of your relationships" experiences, opinions and practices are publicly influenced. Let me explain: Are you monogamous or do you have a large number of husbands/boyfriends? What about your partner, are you one of his wives? If not then you fit into a minority of cultural practices in which the two person relationship is the norm " namely Christian cultures. So there"s one way in which your influenced by the public. What about ownership? Are you owned by your husband? No? well that"s odd by traditional standards: why do you do it like that and not the normal way? Because the public has changed its mind perhaps? Or is it you, if you lived in the middle ages would you know better, from your gender studies in medieval sixth form collage? Do you wear a veil? Why? Why not? Is your husband the only man who is allowed to look at you, or not? Why not? Do you share everything equally or is one expected to more/less of anything? How do you divide the labour? Whatever practices and beliefs you hold, they have come from the society. No person is an island. Women who wear the Niqab or Hijab say the same as you: that it is their choice and an expression of their individualism and freedom. Everybody feels like the decisions they make are their own and that they are individuals who are pure and un-sculpted by their society. Many argue that the more people feel this way, the more they are influenced by it! It is simply not true to say that our relationships are not publicly influenced. And I think its fairly self-evident from what I have eluded and from looking at the world that relationships are effected by public attitude. Stop tacking my relationship onto you barely coherent "observations" of relationships I don"t want to descend into an argument over grammar, but I recommend being careful when insulting someone"s grammar to not absolutely butcher the sentence insulting my ability to write sentences lol. I wouldn't be surprised if my opponents opinions stem from a bad relationship experience he had, and he's still seething with rage, and this is some kind of attempt at a philosophical temper tantrum as an outlet for his anger (or he has some deep seated "mommy issues") nevertheless, his arguments are baseless, illogical, and rather unflattering. I'm embarrassed AT him! This is spot on well done. Except for the mommy issues I think, or perhaps they are unconscious I don"t know! I am still with the spouse that turned me from staunch feminist to misogynist if your interested, she is locked in the basement now with my two daughters who are to be my wives. Now that"s my choice and I certainly don"t let public opinion influence my attitude to relationships! Seriously though, my opinion has been formed over an eight year relationship with marriage and two children and I think its hard for anyone to have a legitimate opinion on these matters without such an experience; not that this experience gives you the right opinion, I am not suggesting I am right because of my experience. But this experience, as well as researching this issue for a study and hearing many conflicting opinions, has led me to this conclusion. I would like to point out, if it helps my standing, that I have been a staunch feminist all my life until about 6 months ago; so I am sincere and well rounded in my opinion. My relationship experience has taught me however, to get back on track, that women are better suited to childcare and housekeeping. My partner takes far more pride in appearance than I do, and this is common across the board, she loves furnishings, decoration and patterns, to make the house look attractive: she will dress the kids smartly and always dislikes how I dress them: she will sit for ages and clean their ears, pick spots, etc and has the patience to play for prolonged periods and be comforting. I will do shorter sessions of play but mine will be task oriented such as cooking or building something, while she will put up with their nonsensical games (equally valuable). I look to the future and thus have dietary restrictions and savings accounts in mind; I will say when we have the money to go on holiday, then she can be in charge of that. She lives in the moment and will have fun, and I will check that by making sure we don"t spend to much money and eat loads of junk food etc. I also run a business and look to expand it to make a profit for the family to continue having fun. My wife however is extremely emotional at times and it causes arguments that can spur out of control because of irrationality on my partners part. This, every man, and I mean every man (over the age of 22) (please if you"re a man in the comments back me up on this) admits to overly frequent "crazy" behaviour on the part of their spouse. My argument basically boils down to this: In many ways feminism encourages the attitude that women can do all the things that men can do (as well as men) and that feminine attributes are somehow lesser in value than masculine attributes and should not be praised. Could I be right in suggesting that your reaction to housekeeping and childcare supports my point? If I had said: "better suited to having a career and making money" you might not have had a problem. What is wrong with raising children I ask you? What is wrong with taking pride in your and your families appearance, and that of your dwelling? Ironically it is feminism that, nowadays, attacks womanhood-at least in this way. Teaching women to be ashamed of doing housework and raising children full time has disrupted the natural balance of duties and roles within the household. Studies show how egalitarian households experience higher levels of conflict, which leads to a lack of stability and shorter relationships. This is a negative impact on relationships. Equality is expected, and no laws should compel this sort of behaviour, but my argument is that feminism negatively impacts relationships and, in this way, I believe it has.