Topic space view
1031 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms
  • CON

    Pro has forfeited 3 rounds, and has not responded to my...

    Feminism is not needed in America anymore and is corrupting some minds.

    Thanks for the debate. Pro has forfeited 3 rounds, and has not responded to my rebuttals. I rest my case.

  • PRO

    Also, yes they may have set up rape centers but they base...

    Feminism is not needed in America anymore and is corrupting some minds.

    Response to B) They do have gender equality. They may be a victim of sexism but so are men. Response to the whole wage gap) Many different people have used many different equations to determine the wage gap. Some find it to be 77 some find it to be 82 some find it to be 91 so that may show that the whole wage gap is misleading. Also, women fresh out of college no family actually make more than men. So the "wage gap" is actually effecting men. Also, I do not have a reliable source for this but I heard that they do not determine the "wage gap" on the actual jobs but the job fields. If this is true then the wage gap is not creditable. And when you say how the mom is the one who takes care of the kid. No one makes her take care of the child after she has given birth. God made women the ones who give birth and we can not change that but no one is making the women the ones who care for children. Adoption or ask the father. Response to 3) Rape culture does not exist. Yes more women are raped then men but that does not change the fact the men are raped too. The fact is that both genders are raped and its horrible I don't see how the statics of male compared to female rape victims matters. Also, yes they may have set up rape centers but they base these centers on women not as much men. Response to 4) I'm not saying men are 60% more skilled i'm saying the men that are in the government are just more skilled at the moment than the women who are challenging them. What I mean by this is that pick the more skilled person. Yes women are 50% of the population but does that mean we should hire women just because they are women. No, we should hire based on skill. If a man has more skill for a job that is male dominated then why not hire the man? If a women has a better skill level for a job that is female dominated hire the female. Don't hire based on gender or race but on skill. I am sorry if I am not making these statements are clear but I am new at this.

  • PRO

    Even though my opponent has forfeited this round, I would...

    Feminism is not misandry, but rather the belief in gender equality

    Even though my opponent has forfeited this round, I would like to make another point about the sexism against women that exists in society. In society, it is considered acceptable for men to show their nipples, but not for women. This is a blatant double standard. Some people might object, and say that the nipples of women are inherently more sexual than the nipples of men. However, I disagree. The nipples of women have both the functions of lactating and of sexual arousal. The nipples of men only have the function of the latter, except for in some rare cases. So, it would be illogical to deny that this is a double standard in society.

  • PRO

    I don't have much to say, as my opponent has forfeited...

    Feminism is not misandry, but rather the belief in gender equality

    I don't have much to say, as my opponent has forfeited this round, but I would like to correct an error that I made in Round 3. I said, and I quote, "Misogynists say, 'Wow, that man claims to have been raped? That must be false, as that would make him a coward, which only men are.'" I meant to say, "Misogynists say, 'Wow, that man claims to have been raped? That must be false, as that would make him a coward, which only women are.'" I realized that I had made an error, so I am correcting it now.

  • CON

    And since we have no control over social attitudes, then...

    The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

    Oh man, have I been barking up the wrong tree. It seems my opponents premise was referring to society as a whole, and so free will has no real place in this debate, boy is my face red!!!!! Ya, because society is made up of a mass of preprogrammed mandroids who have no control over social attitudes. And since we have no control over social attitudes, then we must not have control over how social attitudes affect our individual relationships (assuming we have individual relationships, because my opponent has proven that all of our relationships are a public matter and we have no control over it on an individual basis). I should have read his premise more thoroughly, then I would have noticed the word "society" was clearly present. Sorry for the misunderstanding!!! Just in case you didn't realize, this entire paragraph is sarcasm! All of a sudden, this debate is meaningless on an individual basis and only refers to society as a whole!?! If I may quote my opponent here "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. 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." ***************Ummm, this all sounds like some very personal information and my opponent admits that it is his personal experience that has formed his opinion. My opponent began his argument from the basis of his relationship, but out of nowhere claims that this debate has nothing to do with individual relationships and it only pertains to society as a whole. I remain categorically unconvinced. You need to try harder to convince me that social attitudes affect my relationship more so than I am able to!! I fail to see what point my opponent is trying to make when he talks about "the influence of technological, social and interlectual factors. He claims that these factors take place outside of the individuals control. Of course they do! Beside our bodily functions, ALL factors take place outside of our control. As individuals, we choose to react to these factors. Our choice is still the defining factor here!! What technological factors is my opponent talking about anyway? Is he trying to claim that we are being controlled by our phones and tablets and laptops? It is our CHOICE to engage in technology, it is our choice to let certain information influence us on our additudes. I don't know of any technology that physically drills ideas and attitudes into our head without our consent, and if this technology does exist, I would recommend not using it. Just a suggestion though, it's your choice in the end! I question my opponents idea on the "natural order of things" concept, and I question how "relationship satisfaction" has anything to do with egalitarian attitudes. Is my opponent suggesting that what society thinks about our relationship is the dominant factor for "relationship satisfaction"? If consenting adults enter into a relationship, then the feelings they have or do not have for each other is the dominant factor. If these adults are affected by egalitarian additudes, then it's their choice to let these things affect their relationship. My opponents acceptance of a "natural order" seems to be a more disruptive additude than egalitarian or feminist additudes. When people use phrases like "natural order", what they're really doing is denying that social attitudes change or progress at all, and they label any shifts in additudes as deviance. They deny progress is a real thing, all it is to them is deviation, but denying progress is like denying that the wind blows. Whether you accept it or not, it's still going to happen. Like my opponent pointed out, we've changed from a farm based society to an industrial society, that's progress! I get the sense that my opponent thinks that womens new found sense of self is unprecedented and goes against the natural order of society. If that were true, we would not have the word matriarch. There have been societies where women were held in high regard and some claim they were dominant. Even in European and African cultures women could be queen, they were not specifically barred from that, and in light of this, it makes me wonder what my opponent means by the "natural order of things". I challenge my opponent to clarify his view of the "natural order" of society.

  • CON

    If every other couple on earth, broke -up with each...

    The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

    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. My opponent makes no attempt to provide evidence, and even admits his entire argument is based on his view (notice the first two words in the second paragraph of his argument). HIS VIEW is of no value to the readers and judges of this debate!!! I call on my opponent to clarify his use of the phrase "driving seat". Does my opponent believe men should always have the final say on every single matter in the household? I call that megalomania. So does that mean my opponent believes that women shouldn't have the right to leave such a ridiculous situation, or be able to defend herself mentally or physically (if need be) from that kind of circumstance? If so, that would mean my opponent IS against legal equality of women, even though he claims he is not. So far, I'm fairly underwhelmed by my opponents entire argument. Even if my opponent could prove that women are "less stable then men", or "people are less happy than ever in relationships", it would be of no consequence within this debate because our relationships are not publicly influenced or owned, they are a private matter between two consenting adults. My opponent so far has failed to show how public attitudes can effect private relationships. If every other couple on earth, broke -up with each other, that should mean nothing to you and your spouse because your relationship is personal to you and your spouse ONLY, it is owned by you and your spouse only. When will we stop letting these socialistic attitudes toward relationships stop effecting our personal space? If you let public opinion adversely effect your private relationship, then you deserve all the unwanted consequences of your actions (and I hope it never stops stinging for you!!!). Stop tacking my relationship onto you barely coherent "observations" of relationships!!! My spouse and I are quite happy with our shared responsibility based relationship, and if yours didn't work out for you, too bad, so sad! It doesn't affect my relationship with my spouse. As far as women being the houskeeping unit of the relationship, that is a matter that's decided between two consenting adults. Although, even if most households wanted to have the woman stay at home and maintain the household, that's no longer a viable option for most couples. Unfortunately, because of these socialistic attitudes that have infected our society in the past century, minimum wages have gone up. When minimum wages go up, so do prices (cost of living). When the cost of living goes up, then regular households need to rely on women to make a living as well. My opponent seems to suffer from a "ninteen-fiftees hallucination". His assertions are based on nonsensical, outdated economics and public opinions. 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!