The Instigator
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
striatedgs
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion should be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,061 times Debate No: 71594
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

Wylted

Pro

Read all rules before accepting. Violation of rules should result in a 7 point forfeit.

1. My opponent may not use the letter E at anytime during this debate. Any use of the letter E will result in a 7 point forfeit.

2. My opponent may not intentionally misspell a word.

3. Types of abortion excluded from this debate are ones that are medically necessary for the physical well being of the mother, or terminations of pregnancies as a result of incest or rape.

4. Any attempt to avoid abiding by the rules by semantics or lawyering will immediately end the debate, and the judges are urged to award me all 7 points.
striatedgs

Con

Round 1: Con

Hypocrisy of Family Planning



1. Unconditionally

  1. Right now, billions of humans who could carry out an act which would start offspring spawning almost instantly, don’t.

  2. Why?

    1. “It would disrupt my job plans.”

    2. “I can’t afford it.”

    3. “Not now.”

    4. “Any association I can form right now to carry out such an act is not fit for raising offspring.

  3. But if human adoration for human offspring was as high as humans commonly say it is, would such thoughts approach a logical justification?

  4. In fact, if what was commonly said was logical, humans would withstand any privation, pay any amount, go through any difficulty, stomach any indignity, and abandon any incongruous opportunity, just for any possibility of spawning any offspring at any hour of any day, from a 9th or 10th birthday onwards, ad infinitum.

  5. With luck, a tampon would only land you a trip to jail or a psych ward, to say nothing of condoms.

  6. Such things would look akin to a sick individual flushing catholicons down a drain, so far-ranging is any random claim to so-said unconditional adoration for offspring.

2. Conditionally

  1. But in fact, what is commonly said is not logical, nor truthful.

  2. A mom or dad’s adoration for offspring may typically surpass adoration that humans typically show in any opposing human bond, but that’s not saying much.

  3. Work, play, cash, whim, and difficulty in raising offspring, all play a significant part in appraisals that all humans without offspring invariably think about, and all humans with offspring invariably avoid thinking about.

  4. It is in fact highly conditional adoration, not unconditional, that is at root of all familial bonds, notwithstanding all claims said contrary to this by basically all moms and dads throughout history.

  5. Unconditional adoration is opium for offspring.

3. Abortion

  1. As said, a mom or dad’s adoration for offspring will typically surpass adoration shown in opposing human bonds.

  2. Thus, if a mom and dad do not want a proto-offspring to grow into full form, who will, particularly if third-party humans admit of only highly conditional adoration for familial offspring only?

  3. Proto-offspring, not growing into full form, draws about as much pain from not growing into full form as an ovum draws.

  4. But, again, who stands against tampons?

  5. No additional social cost follows from abortion that wouldn’t also follow from tampons, and as tampons don’t start mass campaigns in opposition, so shouldn’t abortion.

4. Sanctity of human vitality

  1. But if basically only an individual’s popularity, not an intrinsic right, is what counts as authorization for an individual’s vitality, why not allow post-birth abortions?

  2. That is to say, why not allow killing of just about anybody, assuming proof of a minimum amount of unpopularity?

  3. This shouldn’t occur, not on account of any intrinsic right or moral violation, but on account of a human of full form’s ability to fight back.

  4. In contrast to proto-offspring, a human of full form can fight back in myriad ways, and if a bunch of humans of full form fight back it could bring about total chaos.

  5. Proto-offspring is of no risk to public tranquility, in particular if its originators won’t stand in opposition to its disposal, and it is this disparity, not arbitrary notions of what human vitality truly consists in, that contrasts abortion from killing just anybody, and brings about an obviation of notions of human vitality sanctity.

5. Guilt

  1. Lastly, I don’t think that in anybody who thinks about losing an offspring voluntarily, a pang of guilt will not spring up.

  2. This occurring, though, I don’t think should modify opinion.

  3. Do you, in any mind, want as many offspring as your physical capability allows for?

  4. Do you want as many offspring around as all humans’ total physical capability allows for?

  5. If no, and if no pain imparts to proto-offspring during abortion, it should amass no amount of guilt that a tampon wouldn’t.

  6. Making a “should” an “is” though, is not as smooth as an individual might wish, but it’s a small pill to swallow in comparison to offspring ad infinitum, yours plus all humankind’s.

Thank you to you know who for this you know what

Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for an impressive round. I'll issue my rebuttals in round 3, just to be clear.

Abortions are racist

The process of legalizing abortion started as a eugenics experiment, which attempted to at least help kill off the black race. The biggest voice in the attempt to legalize abortion and the founder of planned parenthood Margaret Sanger, spoke openly about her racist intents:

"[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."

"Give dysgenic groups [people with "bad genes"] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization."

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don"t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

http://www.lifenews.com...

"On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger,"

http://www.dianedew.com...

You might say "so what, that was then and this is now", but the fact is nothing has changed. Abortions are targeting and marketed to blacks and is a tool used for the purposes of eugenics.

A recent census report has shown that 79% of abortion clinics are within walking distance to black neighborhoods. http://www.protectingblacklife.org...

Black children are aborted at the rate of 4 times what white children are aborted at. Black people make up 12 percent of the population in the United States yet comprise 36% of the abortions. http://www.abort73.com...

For anyone good with numbers, you can see that half of all black people are exterminated before being born. We are losing half of all black people to the genocide that Margaret Sanger started.

If you think this is coincidence and not intentionally targeting blacks let me provide yet more evidence. Some anti black genocide advocates called numerous planned parenthood a to see if they could donate money for abortions directly targeting blacks. Here is the transcripts:

"Partial transcripts from Ohio and Idaho calls to Planned Parenthood Development offices:
Ohio Representative: Lisa Hutton, Administrative Assistant

Ohio Donor: There"s definitely way too many Black people in Ohio, so I am just trying to do my part.

PP Rep: OK, whatever.

Ohio Donor: Well, Blacks especially need abortions, so that"s what I"m trying to do.

PP Rep: For whatever reason, we"ll accept the money.

Ohio Donor: OK. Great, thank you.

Idaho Representative: Autumn Kersey, Director of Development

Idaho Donor: The abortion"I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose?

PP Rep: Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked for that purpose.

Idaho Donor: Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don"t want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.

PP Rep: Yes, absolutely.

Idaho Donor: And we don"t, you know we just think, the less black kids out there the better.

PP Rep: Understandable, understandable.

Idaho Donor: Right. I want to protect my son, so he can get into college

PP Rep: Alright. Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I"ve had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I"m excited, and want to make sure I don"t leave anything out."

FLO argument

We inherently know murder is wrong, but why do we consider it wrong?

It is wrong to murder people not because we actually hurt them. A lot of times murder is painless, or the pain is temporary. We know murder is wrong, because it deprives a person of future experiences.

Abortion deprives a fetus of a future like ours. One with positive experiences. Here is what the FLO argument looks like in a syllogism as written by the originator of the argument mr Marquis.

"1Killing X is morally wrong because X has a future like ours of great value and killing X deprives X of that future.

2IF [Killing X is morally wrong because X has a future like ours of great value and killing X deprives X of that future.] THEN [If X has a future of great value and killing X deprives X of that future, then killing X is morally wrong.]

Therefore

3If X has a future like ours of great value and killing X deprives X of that future, then killing X is immoral
striatedgs

Con

Round 2: Con:



  1. 0. Summary of up til now:

    1. 1. In my introduction, I said don't outlaw abortion if you want tampons.

    2. 2. Pro said in his introduction 2 things:

      1. 1. Abortion is racist.

      2. 2. Abortion inhibits an individual from having a Forthcoming-simiLar-to-Ours (FLO), and on account of that, is morally wrong.


    3. 3. In short, my position on both is:

      1. 1.Humanity is racist.

      2. 2. Using tampons stops FLO.


    4. 4. In long:


  2. 1. Humanity is racist

      1. 1. Abortion is always wrong, or it isn't always wrong.

      2. 2. If it is always wrong, proving it is racist also is gratuitous; it's wrong anyway.

      3. 3. If abortion isn't always wrong, you don’t try to cut it out totally on account of racism; think about:

        1. Cops

        2. Laws

        3. Jobs

        4. Schools

        5. Voting

        6. Gun owning

        7. Caucasians

        8. This country (US)

        9. Humanity broadly



    1. 4. Should you also cut out all things on this list, if racism is found to abound in all, historically and today?

    2. 5. No, as long as what's at hand isn't totally wrong, you shouldn't cut it out totally on account of racist links; you should maintain what part of it is not wrong, and try to disjoin said links as much as you can, asymptotically.


  3. 2. Using tampons stops FLO




    1. 1. Pro says that why killing humans is morally wrong is that it stops a human from having a FLO (Forthcoming-simiLar-to-Ours).

    2. 2. But, if this is so:


      1. 1. Using a tampon is morally wrong,

      2. 2. Birth control is morally wrong,

      3. 3. Taking part in any activity that conflicts with producing what maximum sum of offspring you physically can is morally wrong

      4. 4. Not raping any girl 9 and up in whom offspring is not now spawning is morally wrong.


    3. 3. Possibly, though, you think that auxiliary moral rights undo such things.

    4. 4. But, wouldn’t all such rights--such as a right against raping for not now spawning offspring--also imply a right to not always try to hit a FLO maximum (on what opposing grounds would you not now start spawning offspring forthwith)?

    5. 5. Most of what’s said in this paragraph was said in my initial round, and as Pro has not had an opportunity to talk about tampons (or his strong suit, raping 9 yr. olds) thus far, I’ll finish by noting that as of now at this junction, any right-thinking suffragist to this discussion has an obvious road to follow; viz.,


      1. Option #1=Killing kids for not doing anything wrong, or

      2. Option #2=Raping 9 yr. old prima donnas.




You know what Con.

Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Pro

TAMPONS DON'T ALWAY STOP FLOW

My opponent argues that if we assume abortion is immoral than we must also by extension argue that wearing a condom is immoral or a tampon. This is somewhat absurd. If my argument makes it immoral to kill a sperm than his argument makes it moral to kill an infant. What is the difference between aborting a full term pregnancy and an infant?

Well for one you have to be the same entity that will develop into a human for the FLO argument to work, and we don't have an entity yet, until the sperm meets the egg, and the process of forming a human is started. It is premature to apply the FLO argument to anything before that, because none of those things have yet to form a human.

In summary, the FLO argument applies to the same entity as what will develop into a full grown human, and that the tampon argument is silly, because a woman usually can't conceive during menstruation.

RACISM

My opponent argues that if something has a some racism in it than it is not enough to ban it, because by extension we'd have to ban Caucasians, guns and voting among other things. The difference is that it is the purpose of abortion to be racist as my argument states, and my opponent drops my argument that abortion is racist in favor of arguing that the racism doesn't matter.

The purpose of abortion is to genocide the black population. It's entire purpose is for the purposes of cleansing the world of inferior races and people as confessed to by Margaret Sanger.

I do think that we should eliminate the instrument for black Genocide, yes.

CONCLUSION

I have not had much time to write this out, but my point has been made clear, while I stand here scratching my head at some of my opponent's arguments. He has had the disadvantage of not being able to use an E, but on the other hand, it seems he has made a tiny point here or there and just droned on about it, to make his points seem bigger.

I'd like the judges to consider the rape comment in the last round a conduct violation. Implying somebody will rape a 9 year old during a debate is inappropriate.

I guess the human vitality argument by my opponent was an attempt to say that if a human can't defend themselves, they deserve to die, I am not sure. I didn't quite get it, but it is absurd enough and not provided premises so the response is covered in my FLO argument as well as the voter's sense of what is absurd or not.
striatedgs

Con



  1. Round 3: CON



  2. 1. Gaps in my tampons?
    1. 1. Last round, I said that:
      1. Tampons stop FLO.
        1. ...That is, if stopping “Forthcomings simiLar to Ours” is morally wrong, a tampon is just as morally wrong as abortion is, and as nobody would say a tampon is morally wrong, so shouldn’t anybody say abortion is morally wrong.
    2. To this, Pro said 2 things:
      1. 1. FLO only counts for a baby, not for an ovum.
      2. 2. A tampon is a bad analogy anyway, in that a woman can not start having a baby if using a tampon.
    3. To this, I say:
      1. To FLO not applying to ova:
        1. As soon as a girl hits 9 or 10, a baby can pop out following continuous 9-month spans.
        2. Say that a girl or woman volitionally skips a span, or is habitually lackadaisical following birth in carrying out an act which would bring about a following birth.
        3. How can anybody say that such a woman is not in so doing stopping offspring from having a FLO?
        4. Obviously, in such a situation, which ovum that turns into a child is not known, nor is what DNA from which dad known.
        5. ...but this is trivial: What is not trivial is that from such a girl’s or woman’s dilly-dallying, *a* child from *an* ovum and *a* dad is *not* having a FLO.
        6. Pro’s claim is on that account ad hoc, FLO warrants no distinction for a baby and an ovum, and thus, as I said initially, as a tampon is not morally wrong so isn’t abortion.
      2. On tampons as an analogy:
        1. If FLO can apply to ova, using tampons is immoral, not on account that an act of actually using a tampon is immoral, but on account that using tampons is a logical fruition of acting immorally for a month (immoral, if FLO is right, which it’s not).
  3. 2. Stopping this black holocaust
    1. Last round, I said:
      1. You don’t try to outlaw abortion if it has racist links, you try to disjoin said links.
    2. To this, Pro said:
      1. Abortion is racist at its roots, so you can’t disjoin its racism from it.
    3. To this, I say:
      1. If you wiki Maggy S.:abortion, Maggy S. was a champion for birth control, but was actually against abortion.
      2. If you wiki US historical racial statistics, you’ll find that:
        1. In 1850, 66 yrs. prior to Maggy S.’s first clinic in 1916,
          1. Non-Hispanic Caucasians stood at 83.8% of US population,
          2. Blacks stood at 15.7%, and
          3. Hispanics at 0.5%.
        2. In 1910,
          1. Non-Hispanic Caucasians stood at 88.1% of US population,
          2. Blacks stood at 10.7%, and
          3. Hispanics at 0.9%.
        3. And in 2010,
          1. Non-Hispanic Caucasians stood at 63.7%,
          2. Blacks at 12.6%, and
          3. Hispanics at 16.3%.
      3. Also, if you wiki abortion, abortion’s historical log is roughly 3775 yrs. old, going back to Hammurabi’s Laws (1760 BC).
      4. From this information, an individual can draw that:
        1. Maggy S. was not a part of abortion’s initial historical formulation,
        2. Maggy S. was actually against abortion,
        3. Up until now, abortion has not had an impact on US racial population distribution.
      5. Thus, abortion is not racist at its roots, so you should act towards it as you act toward all things with racist links; that is, you should maintain what part of it is not racist, and try to disjoin said links.
  4. 3. Who wants to start raping 9 yr. olds?
    1. Last round, I said:
      1. Not raping any girl 9 and up in whom offspring is not now spawning is morally wrong.
      2. “...Pro has not had an opportunity to talk about tampons (or his strong suit, raping 9 yr. olds)”
      3. “...Option #2=Raping 9 yr. old prima donnas.”
    2. To this, Pro said:
      1. Implying an individual will start raping 9 yr. olds during this match is wrong.
    3. To this, I say:
      1. Quotation #1 is what I think follows logically from Pro’s claim about FLO; accordingly, it is talking about what should occur if that claim is factual, not what will occur.
      2. Quotation #2 is an allusion to a DDO match Pro had last month about raping 9 yr. olds.
      3. Quotation #3 is not about what will occur if you ballot for Pro, but what I think you logically sanction by doing so.
      4. Again, I’m not saying raping *will* occur in any way, only that it *should* occur *if Pro’s FLO claim is right*.
  5. 4. Abortion=Anarchy?
    1. In my first round, I said:
      1. Allowing abortion shouldn’t allow killing of just about anybody in that humans of full form can fight back.
    2. To this, Pro says:
      1. It sounds as if Con is saying that individuals who can’t fight back should stop living.
    3. To this, I say:
      1. Think of a world prior to laws against randomly killing anybody.
      2. In such a world, at any instant anybody could try to kill you (or try to kill a third party, and kill you without trying to) with no ramifications, apart from you or a buddy of yours trying to kill back that guy or gal trying to kill you.
      3. Virtually nobody wants this situation to occur; thus, no notion of human-vitality sanctity is obligatory so as to outlaw it.
      4. So, it’s not that humans who can’t fight back should stop living, it’s that a proto-human, contrasting from a human of full form, can not fight back or rally support, and thus, a law which stops random killing on account that it stops total chaos from occurring can not similarly apply to abortion.
Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Pro

FLO

My opponent isn"t quite understanding my FLO argument. His rebuttals fall short. It is the last round, so he may not bring up new arguments, and if he does those arguments should be disregarded. Here is what my argument looked like for flo.

1Killing X is morally wrong because X has a future like ours of great value and killing X deprives X of that future.

2IF [Killing X is morally wrong because X has a future like ours of great value and killing X deprives X of that future.] THEN [If X has a future of great value and killing X deprives X of that future, then killing X is morally wrong.]

Therefore

3If X has a future like ours of great value and killing X deprives X of that future, then killing X is immoral

This argument was not offered a rebuttal but a counter argument which basically boils down to saying that if the FLO argument is correct than any form of birth control by extension would have to be immoral. However I pointed out that the FLO argument only pertains to an entity that exists. A sperm or an egg, do not have a future like ours, this is 2 separate life forms which have their own life cycles, separate from a human one. Now when the egg meets the sperm, it becomes an entity that has a future like ours. Same entity same future. A sperm or an egg is not a future human, but a sperm and an egg when combined is

. Simple concept, I hope we are on the same page. My opponent completely drops this argument. By default I win this argument and by extension this debate, on this alone. If the FLO argument stands, and it does. It is a clear win for me.

Racism

Let me clear up this misconception that Sanger was against abortion. She is actually really popular in the pro-choice movement because of all the hard work she did to move the United States towards legalizing abortion. She did publish an article where she mentions preferring birth control to abortion. https://www.nyu.edu...

The goal of the speech was to legalize abortion. She used the famous argument that women are going to get abortions anyway, so it should be legalized so they can abort in a safe environment. That is an argument for a different debate, but the focus needs to be on the intent. The same paper that said she preferred birth control to abortion, is the same one petitioning the public to push for the legalization of abortion.

My opponent says: "Up until now, abortion has not had an impact on US racial population distribution. Thus, abortion is not racist at its roots"

However abortion has prevented the growth of the black population. My opponent has not contested my stats, but if they are to be believed the black population should be more than double what it is now. My stats show blacks are disproportionately effected, as many as 50% are killed before they are born. Planned Parenthood abortion clinics have a tendency to show up in black neighborhoods. I have quotes from the biggest name in pro choice, that show the intent of legalizing abortion. My opponent has failed to show a single reason why abortion should be legal.

My opponent does mention that abortion was around 3,000 years and before M. Sanger was not used for racist reasons. I would point out that murder was around before Hitler, but him targeting certain minorities was a racist use of an old invention, just as abortion is a racist use of an unethical thing that has been around a while.

CONCLUSION

My opponent has completel fumbled against my FLO argument, and falls short of countering my argument that abortions as they are today are inherently racist. Vote PRO.
striatedgs

Con

To maintain 3 rounds total for both Pro and Con, pass.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
The reported vote ended up giving me a 3 point lead instead of a 2 point lead. Much thanks to whoever reported that and helped me.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=====================================================================
>Reported vote: kingkd // Moderator action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (arguments), 1 point to Con (S&G). {Reasons for voting decision: COn gets spelling grammar cause not using e is hard. However, racism goes pro which tips towards pro ballot}

[*Reason for removal*] It's not sufficient on arguments to just say "racism goes pro." What was the racism argument and *why* did it sway you in favor of Pro? RFDs have to explain *why* they found an argument persuasive. It's not enough to just refer to a single argument Pro made and say it "goes pro." Why was this argument good? Why was Con unable to refute it. The standard for RFDs is whether they offer some meaningful feedback. This RFD does not.
======================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=====================================================================
>Reported vote: kingkd // Moderator action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (arguments), 1 point to Con (S&G). {Reasons for voting decision: COn gets spelling grammar cause not using e is hard. However, racism goes pro which tips towards pro ballot}

[*Reason for removal*] It's not sufficient on arguments to just say "racism goes pro." What was the racism argument and *why* did it sway you in favor of Pro? RFDs have to explain *why* they found an argument persuasive. It's not enough to just refer to a single argument Pro made and say it "goes pro." Why was this argument good? Why was Con unable to refute it. The standard for RFDs is whether they offer some meaningful feedback. This RFD does not.
======================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=====================================================================
>Reported vote: kingkd // Moderator action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (arguments), 1 point to Con (S&G). {Reasons for voting decision: COn gets spelling grammar cause not using e is hard. However, racism goes pro which tips towards pro ballot}

[*Reason for removal*] It's not sufficient on arguments to just say "racism goes pro." What was the racism argument and *why* did it sway you in favor of Pro? RFDs have to explain *why* they found an argument persuasive. It's not enough to just refer to a single argument Pro made and say it "goes pro." Why was this argument good? Why was Con unable to refute it. The standard for RFDs is whether they offer some meaningful feedback. This RFD does not.
======================================================================
Posted by kingkd 1 year ago
kingkd
You guys are fantastic.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Wow! Considering its the.most used letter in the English language... wow
Posted by Sapphique 1 year ago
Sapphique
I never realized how much could be said *without* the letter "e" before reading this given that it's so commonplace, lol. Props to Con for that.
Posted by EAT_IT_SUKA 1 year ago
EAT_IT_SUKA
striatedgs, I applaud you for accepting this debate, and not using the letter 'e.' That's impressive. Congrats.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Good job.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Any "e". See the rule about not lawyering
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kingkd 1 year ago
kingkd
WyltedstriatedgsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that Pro wins this debate. The racism argument is clearly won by Pro as the only rebuttal offered is that racism is not relevant and other institutions are clearly racist such as police, so they should be banned also by Pro logic. However, Pro wins by saying that aborion was CREATED to enhance racism as clearly stated by stats. The police were meant to enforce justice, not be racist, so reform works for polic but not abortion. The arbument about thongs goes Pro as Pro is correct that sperm is not the same thing as a fetus. Pro wins that the fetus is an alive human, while Con's refutation falls short. Con made no sense about "rape of 9 year old girls" argument.