args

Feminism is not sexist.

To begin, my opponent misunderstands the issue that I have with their use of the definition. There is an assumed difference between human rights and women's rights within said definition. It is assumed in the definition that women have rights that are not equal to men's, and given this, it is necessary to advocate for them. My opponent presumes that "women's rights" equal "human rights", without an explanation of why we should conclude this. If it is assumed that "women's rights" are "human rights", there is no reason to advocate for women's rights specifically, and thus it necessarily becomes sexist that feminism focuses on women. This argument from my opponent does not refute what I have said; it actually reinforces it. My opponent also, once again, fails to address Sexual and Domestic Violence laws, and wholly misunderstands my position. I have already explained my reasons for connecting these laws to feminism: "The reason why this is crucial to my arguments, and truly this whole debate, is that it leads to the support of laws that are made to support women's rights. Such things as protection under the law and voting are some rights that can be, and have been, advocated for. As such, they fall into the realm of 'feminism'..." This is from Round 4. PRO's attempt to argue that a law is only feminist if it supports the equal rights of men and women is flawed, as the only mention of equal rights of the sexes is in reference to justification for the advocacy of women's rights. (See Feminism definition per Round 1) PRO's argument fails to address this. PRO then argues, per Tu Quoque, that I am guilty of the exact same act, of neglecting portions of a definition. However, that is exactly my point. By advocating for women's rights, feminism creates a situation wherein "the equality of the sexes" is not the result; rather, a bias towards women, and against men, is the result. Again, PRO's argument supports my position. PRO seems to be interested in my argument against her analogy, despite my reasoning as to why it is to be viewed as weak. Again, I shall refer my opponent and the audience to my arguments regarding this: ' What do atheists advocate for that is definitive of atheism? What advocacy do atheists support that is definitive of atheism? Perhaps the only thing that could be argued here, in relation to advocacy, would be a removal of religion from major institutions. This might be considered advocacy on behalf of rights, insofar as freedom of (and from) religion is concerned. However, this is not a crucial part of the atheist position. Again, I say that PRO's analogy is weak, as there attributes that Feminism has (mainly activism) that Atheism does not have as part of the ideology. As such, we start in a position where any Argument from Analogy cannot stand. My analogy begins with two ideologies that promote the rights of two groups, that then produce two different results. Then, my opponent critiques my Tax Analogy as "pointless". Simple Rebuttal to a Simple Assertion: No, it isn't. Complex Rebuttal: My analogy is closely related to the current situation with voting rights. Men must sign up for Selective Service (at least in the US) in order to earn the right to vote, effectively paying a higher tax (as to refuse carries harsh consequences), while women simply turn 18 (effectively paying little to no tax). I would argue there is indeed a point, as this actually elucidates the terminology used. I attempted to keep my arguments in this round as close to the arguments that I have already presented as possible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I shall now make my Closing Statements. My position was that Feminism is Sexist. In the pursuit of Women's Rights, there are instances of inequality, with a bias towards women, and against men. These biases as evident when one obesrves Sexual Violence, the VAWA and Domestic Violence laws, and Selective Service and Voting. I presented arguments that I believe justify making a connection between Feminism and these laws, which I have mentioned above. Each of these areas have had a plethora of activism in relation to how they affect women. Meaning that these laws have special considerations for women (VAWA, Sexual Violence), or at least do not address women (Selective Service). This leads to a scenario wherein women are advantaged, and men are, by comparison, advantaged. I have provided an analogy that I believe displays this. In my refutations of PRO's arguments, I argued for the weakness of the "Atheism-Feminism" Analogy, pointing out the flaws that are present in the decision to compare the two. I then provided my own analogy, which I view as stronger than the one provided by PRO. In relation to the arguments provided by PRO, I pointed out the flawed reasoning present in PRO's inclination to argue through the secondary clause of the definition provided. I mentioned that to argue that utilizing the clause "equality of the sexes" to attempt to refute my arguments is not a strong form of argumentation, given that the equality of the sexes is simply the grounds which justifies the advocacy of women's rights, it is not that for which feminists advoacate. Given the arguments provided, I believe I have provided strong reasons to believe that Feminism is indeed sexist. My job was to argue against the reolution, to the effect of "Feminism is sexist". PRO was to argue in favor of the resolution, to the effect of "Feminism is not sexist". To the voters, if I have given sound reasons for the sexist nature of Feminism, refuting the resolution, Please vote CON. If PRO has provided arguments to negate mine and affirm the resolution, please vote PRO. My thanks to my opponent for engaging in this debate with me.

Feminism is relevant

thank you for your challenge Feminism is a supermachist movement as its name implies since otherwise it would be known as "equalism" feminists of all eras want power not equality. therefore feminism belongs on the same category as aryanism

Feminism is wrong

I am excited to be in my very first online debate and to challenge those with differing views Before I begin, just want to inform you that I am NOT a feminist. In fact, I'm not a fan of most forms of modern feminism at all. I think modern feminism has got a bit too far so I do agree with you that modern feminism is aiming to raise women up and push men down and I do think that is very wrong. But I do believe in equality. By equality I mean women AND men should have equal rights and opportunities. I don't know what you are for. Are you for male domination or equality? What is your clear reason for not liking feminism? is it because you don't want women having equal rights (misogyny) or that you think that feminists are not concerned about men? When you answer this question. The debate will officially begin! thank you!

Feminism is not equality

To begin with, the vast substance of my opponent's text does not address my points at all, in fact it seems to not even acknowledge the existence of my side of the debate, instead following a narrative of women having more rights than men. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I have opinions on this, but they are hardly pertinent, as the premise of the debate is the definition of feminism(Feminism is not equality), not that women or men are treated better or worse than each other in modern society. There is an explanation as to why Pro's argument only lightly skirts mine at the beginning and end, and not at all in the core of it. This is a bit embarrassing for me, but here it is: http://thoughtcatalog.com... Youngastronomer's entire dissertation from "1) Women have the right to genital integrity..." to "...And maybe you do, too." is taken verbatim from this article, written by Janet Bloomfield. It is certainly not standard conduct in a debate to have one side call upon a third party to come and argue their case for them. It is a minor detail, but seeing as the vast majority of my opponents response was written by someone else, I feel that this occurrence merits notice. I have explained in the first paragraph why the aforementioned text does not refute my arguments, and the same rebuttal there applies to the points of "Women can accuse men of rape without evidence" and "Guilty until proven innocent", namely the fact that we aren't discussing the current conditions of sexual-based institutional biases. My opponent also raises the etymology of the word "feminism", positing that if you are going to adhere to the narrow dictionary definition of feminism, why not take it a step further and and use the origin of the word. He also claims that feminists " shy away from analyzing what a root word and a suffix add up to", implying that that analysis will contest with the views on feminism I have purveyed. This is not at all the case. The word feminine means "of the female sex...", "feminine, female; with feminine qualities, effeminate"{1}, and the suffix -ism means "word-forming element making nouns implying a practice, system, doctrine, etc."{2}. To summarize, the most literally meaning would be, "the practice of being feminine". Actually, when the word was coined(c. 1851){3}, this literal interpretation would have been more insulting to women, as at the time traits valued in woman were things now seen as negative characteristics, such as complacency and servility. In conclusion the etymology of the word provides no support for Pro's case of feminism meaning superiority of women. Finally, this debate is a contest of semantics. Semantics are a sub-field of semiotics, or the study of symbols. Semantics is specifically the study of words(symbols) and meanings. Words are symbols, and they connote meanings. When I say "chair", you can interpret that symbol and think of a chair. This basic principle is what I outlined in my previous syllogism, a principle that was never even contested by my opponent. Here is an example to reiterate. Currently 10% of Protestant "Christians" in America don't believe in God{4}. Let's imagine this number rose to 51%. Would we now say that Christians are people who don't believe in God? Of course not, because the meaning of someone who believes in Yah'Weh and Christ being Christian has seniority over this new "Definition". That meaning has long since been codified as what it is today. This applies to feminism as well. If Pro wanted to defeat my argument, his task would be to demonstrate why such unimpugnable authorities, such as Merriam Webster and Encyclopedia Britannica, are erroneous in their definition of feminism, a feat which he never even attempted. Pro has blundered fatally in using the wrong word to represent what he was trying to argue against. Perhaps a more appropriate premise for my opponent would have been, "Third-Wave Feminism is not equality". {1}http://www.etymonline.com... {2}http://www.etymonline.com... {3}http://www.etymonline.com... {4}http://www.simpletoremember.com...

Feminism Should not be Encouraged

I would like to begin by first clarifying the definition of: "Feminism": "The advocacy of women"s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...] I am against the topic "Feminism Should not be Encouraged". Therefore, I am for the topic "Feminism Should be Encouraged". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Why I believe feminism should be encouraged: Feminism (by definition) aims for equal rights between sexes. Why should feminism be encouraged in schools? It would teach kids that gender discrimination is wrong. Why should feminism be encouraged to employers? It would make employers aware that gender should not be a factor when there is a competition for a job - that only the traits, abilities and other relevant factors would be necessary. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I will continue after Pro produces his case. I will subsequently try and rebuttal. Good luck.

Feminism is men-hating

The definition of feminism is the belief that the men and women should be treated equally in economy, politics and other stuff. That means that feminism benefits men too. Fathers always get less credit than mothers and feminism will fix that. Men crying is considered improper by the elite society, but feminism will fix that. People expect more from men and the punishment are more severe, but feminism will fix that.