The Instigator
bpoudyal
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
enternamehere
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Do governments need to address issues of social dominance faced by men at the hands of women?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
enternamehere
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 554 times Debate No: 68660
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

bpoudyal

Pro

So let me begin this debate.....the motion is : Do governments need to address issues of social dominance faced by men at the hands of women.....and I am speaking for the motion. By social dominance....it means men being suppressed, or given very little opportunity, or abused or mistreated in any way by women as women are progressively getting more and more empowered in our societies and still enjoying a wide range of rights that men donot. Now, the topic of discussion of my motion doesnot include societies in which male domination over women is highly prevalent. The motion only includes countries in which women are very empowered and are enjoying equal or even more rights and opportunities than men do...........
So, does the government in such countries need to check men violence(by women) and discrimination....including fraud, fake allegation, domestic abuse on men, unequal division of labour, more opportunity to women and women quotas, ....? I believe yes. The matter of social discrimination, violence or justice isnt a man's issue or a woman's issue and every human, every gender has the right to be treated respectfully by the other gender. Moreover, everyone should be equal before the law and the law should protect all of its citizens......so shouldn't the law protect its male citizens from gender violence and discrimination as much as it does for its women counterparts?Yes, it definitely should!
So my basic point is this: Governments need to address the issues of social dominance/ discrimination faced by men at the hands of women so as to maintain a just, well ordered and equitable society.
My arguments are:
(1) Every person, irrespective of his/her gender has the right to live a respectable, happy life , free of any social discrimination/violence.
(2) It is necessary for the complete eradication of gender violence from our society as gender violence is not only confined to women violence.
(3)Addressing social issues faced by men is the next step towards maintaining a society thats safe and just for women themselves.
So let me discuss my first argument first(we'll discuss the remaining ones later):
It is of no doubt that the right to live a dignified life , along with the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental right guaranteed by any constitution of any country. people also have the right to be protected against any form of social violence. In the eyes of the law, everyone is equal , so people also have the right to equality. So if there's a society where men and women are already equal, why should women get extra opportunity? isnt that a discrimination against men and a violation of their fundamental human right? And if men are facing social gender abuse of any kind, why shouldn't they be protected? They should be , for it is in accordance with the spirit of the constitution , and a basic human right to live a free life. If men are being harmed, they too have the right to complain and to be protected. Its fundamental....
enternamehere

Con



P1: Women don't have more rights than men.
P2: In third world countries, women's rights need to be improved.
C: Not all governments need to address issues of social dominance faced by men at the hands of women.



Premise 1: For this premise to be wrong, women would have to aquire more rights (rights -A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something) [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...] than men. Since Pro said "women are progressively getting more and more empowered in our societies and still ejoying a wide range of rights that men donot", he assumes burden of proof. To fulfill it, he has to prove that all men have more rights than women.


Premise 2: In third world countries, women's rights need to be improved: examples of how men's rights exceed women's, therefore, their government should not address issues of social dominance at the hands of women.

Forbidden from driving.

"In Saudi Arabia, women aren’t allowed to drive, or even ride bikes, and men aren’t allowed to drive women they’re not closely related to."

Right to divorce.

"In many countries, while husbands can divorce their spouses easily (often instantaneously through oral repudiation), wives’ access to divorce is often extremely limited, and they frequently confront near insurmountable legal and financial obstacles."


Right to education.

"In many areas of Afghanistan, girls are often taken out of school when they hit puberty."



Right to travel.

"Husbands in Egypt and Bahrain can file an official complaint at the airport to forbid their wives from leaving the country for any reason."


Domestic violence.

"Women’s unequal legal rights increase their vulnerability to violence. In many countries in the region, no specific laws or provisions exist to penalize domestic violence, even though domestic violence is a widespread problem."

Citizenship.

"Most countries in the region-with the exception of Iran, Tunisia, Israel, and to a limited extent Egypt-have permitted only fathers to pass citizenship on to their children. Women married to non-nationals are denied this fundamental right."


Sexual subjugation.

"Many countries criminalize adult, consensual sex outside of marriage. In Morocco, women are much more likely to be charged with having violated penal code prohibitions on sexual relations outside of marriage than men. Unmarried pregnant women are particularly at risk of prosecution. The Moroccan penal code also considers the rape of a virgin as an aggravating circumstance of assault. The message is clear: the degree of punishment of the perpetrator is determined by the sexual experience of the victim."

Sources for this case: [http://listverse.com......]


Conclusion:

Since there are women out there who have less rights than men, Pro's resolution is negated.


I ask that Pro provides evidence for his affirmation.

Debate Round No. 1
bpoudyal

Pro

As i said in round one:" the topic of discussion of my motion doesnot include societies in which male domination over women is highly prevalent. The motion only includes countries in which women are very empowered and are enjoying equal or even more rights and opportunities than men do". Since the topic of dicussion of our debate only includes countries (like US, european countries, other developed countries.....) in which women are empowered and are fairly equal to men, and not third world countries or countries like saudi arabia, bahrain, egypt,iraq or afghanistan or any other countries in which violence/discrimination against women is highly prevalent, your second point(P2) and all those examples that youve mentioned to support that point are INVALID. and since ive already mentioned that we are not discussing for all governments, your comment(C) is also INVALID.
As for your P1 , let me provide examples/evidences that women do have more rights and opportunities in countries that are under our discussion: Women have reservations in public offices,the government, even in school level programmes,,men donot.......women have right to abortion,men donot.....women have more rights when it comes to divorce(e.g the custody of the child)...women have the right to report a man of domestic abuse/rape/other violence, men donot...women have the right to talk about their gender issues without being wrongfully dubbed politically incorrect or backwards or being considered socially taboo, men donot...socially,men are expected to behave in certain ways such as men donot cry, men have to be bold, men need to go to work(social expectation) while women can choose to stay at home...women can wear pants , if men wear skirts, theyre considered gay...
thus, both your arguments P1 and P2(as well as C ) are wrong.
as for my next arguments:
(2) Gender violence doesnot only include violence against women but violence against any gender so if it is to be eradicated completely, even the gender issues/discrimination faced by men should be eradicated. Only by eradicating gender discrimination against men can gender discrimination be completely eradicated. This can be done only if the government does take efforts to eradicate discriminatory practices against men....
(3)Only if men enjoy equal social rights and opportunities(free of gender stereotypes) and their issues addressed can they be free and feel responsible to safeguard women's rights aswell. Since men whose own rights are being suppressed by gender stereotypes, and lack of opportunity cannot stand up for women's rights (see Emma Watson's UN address: www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-iFl4qhBsE )
Since you havent refuted my first argument, ive refuted both of yours, and my remaining arguments are very strong aswell...i think the case is settled. The government does need to address gender violence/discrimination issues faced by men so as to maintain a just, well ordered and equitable society.

Waiting for your response...
enternamehere

Con

First I'd like to say that yes, I read Pro's round one wrong. However, it is very hard to understand what Pro has written. This should not cost me the debate, for I am Con. For Con to win debates, Con has to show that there is not enough evidence to validate the resolution.


Rebuttals:

"Women have reservations in public offices,the government, even in school level programmes,,men donot"
I really can not understand what Pro is trying to claim... Reservation: "The action of reserving something" [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...], I ask that Pro rephrases this in the next round, so that it is understandable. I also ask that Pro provides evidence.

"women have right to abortion,men donot"
Men do not have the right to abortion, for they do not carry the baby.

"women have more rights when it comes to divorce(e.g the custody of the child)"
Pro provides no evidence...

"women have the right to report a man of domestic abuse/rape/other violence, men donot".
Men have the right to report a man, or a women for all of these things. Pro claims that men do not have the right to report violence.

"women have the right to talk about their gender issues without being wrongfully dubbed politically incorrect or backwards or being considered socially taboo, men donot"
"socially,men are expected to behave in certain ways such as men donot cry, men have to be bold, men need to go to work(social expectation) while women can choose to stay at home...women can wear pants , if men wear skirts, theyre considered gay..."
Provides no proof...

"Gender violence doesnot only include violence against women but violence against any gender so if it is to be eradicated completely, even the gender issues/discrimination faced by men should be eradicated".
Physical violence, like assault is illegal, for all genders. Gender discrimination can happen to both genders, it can not be eradicated. For it to be eradicated completely, people would lose their right to free speech... Even if something becomes illegal, it does not mean it is eradiated. Cocaine is illegal. People can still get Cocaine. Therefore, it is utterly impossible for everything that Pro just claimed to be destroyed completely.


"Only if men enjoy equal social rights and opportunities(free of gender stereotypes) and their issues addressed can they be free and feel responsible to safeguard women's rights aswell. Since men whose own rights are being suppressed by gender stereotypes, and lack of opportunity cannot stand up for women's rights."
None of this fulfills you BoP. As Pro, your argument has to correlate with the resolution. None of the points you have brought forward proves that socially, women dominate men. You point out that men can be socially descriminated against, which is irrelevant.

So far:
1.Pro uses incorrect grammar, making it very hard to understand what he is saying
2.Pro has not fulfilled the BoP
3.I have refuted his arguments
4.Pro provides no evidence for Pro's claims




Debate Round No. 2
bpoudyal

Pro

(1) I really cant understand why the con should have any difficulty with regards to my grammar or written english. My english is fully understandable by any average speaker of this language and if my con doesn't understand it then it's not my problem but his problem!
(2) His lack of understanding in the first place should cost him the debate as his ideas in the first round were completely irrelevant to today's motion.
(3) The con has argued that for him to win this debate, he only has to show that there isnt enough evidences. However, the debate is not just won only on the basis of evidence but also on the basis of logic, ideas and proper examples. And i have completely dominated over him in this regards.
(4) As for evidences , I've already given really good examples to support my arguments. Now here are more evidences to support my points:
#According to the Department of Health and Human Services, women receive custody of children 92% of the time in cases of divorce and illegitimacy.
#Talk about military draft: When it comes to times of national emergency, men lose out again. women living in the U.S. have never been required to register for the draft. All eligible men, meanwhile, must register upon reaching the age of 18 (or before age 26 if taking up residence in the U.S. when already older than 18). Failure to register can result in fines of up to $250,000, as well as disqualification from many federal programs.
#In the US, Men still have to pay for alimony of the wife after divorce, even if the man earns lesser than the woman
#From the Guardian:" About two in five of all victims of domestic violence are men. Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available"
#Women have a 40 percent quota in the European union companies. They also have 30 percent reservations in companies in Germany. In my own country(Nepal) women have 33% reservation in public vehicles, offices, the government.
R: Although men donot carry the baby , they do have to pay for the baby's expenses and nurture the child.
As for the other examples that I've already provided, the examples themselves stand as a true evidence to justify my point.
So now,
>I presented really strong arguments.
>I've provided proper evidences and reasonings to support my point.
>I've refuted all my opponent's arguments, the majority of which was irrelevant to this discussion.
>My opponent has not produced any proper argument of his own, has not been able to defend his arguments from Round 1, and has not been able to refute my arguments!
>My basic point is that the government does need to address gender discrimination issues faced by men. There are only pros to it and no harms to any third party. There are no reasons as to why the government shouldn't, and I've already presented strong reasons as to why it should.
Thus i win the debate.
enternamehere

Con

"My english is fully understandable by any average speaker of this languag"
Pro's round one is riddled with grammatical inaccuracies...

"His lack of understanding in the first place should cost him the debate as his ideas in the first round were completely irrelevant to today's motion."
None of Pro's arguments have correlated with the resolution. He merely stated circumstances where men have issues.

"However, the debate is not just won only on the basis of evidence but also on the basis of logic, ideas and proper examples. And i have completely dominated over him in this regards."
Pro has shown no evidence, logic or cited sources for his information. How do we know if it is true? I can say, 100% of males are 6ft three. But, how do we know whether my information is true, without sources?

"As for evidences , I've already given really good examples to support my arguments".
Pro has provided no evidence.

"#According to the Department of Health and Human Services, women receive custody of children 92% of the time in cases of divorce and illegitimacy.",
"Talk about military draft: When it comes to times of national emergency, men lose out again. women living in the U.S. have never been required to register for the draft. All eligible men, meanwhile, must register upon reaching the age of 18 (or before age 26 if taking up residence in the U.S. when already older than 18). Failure to register can result in fines of up to $250,000, as well as disqualification from many federal programs.",
"#In the US, Men still have to pay for alimony of the wife after divorce, even if the man earns lesser than the woman".
"#From the Guardian:" About two in five of all victims of domestic violence are men. Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available"
#Women have a 40 percent quota in the European union companies. They also have 30 percent reservations in companies in Germany. In my own country(Nepal) women have 33% reservation in public vehicles, offices, the government."
Pro provides no sources for this. So how do we know whether it is true? Even if it were true. It is irrelevant to the resolution!


Why I won the debate.
-Pro provides no evidence to support his claim. Even if it was sourced, it does not fulfill the burden of proof. It just proves that men can be discriminated against.
-Pro's argument is irrelevant
-I have refuted everything
-A debate without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
-Many grammatical/spelling errors on Pro's side
-Pro did not fulfill the burden of proof. Which was to provide sufficient evidence to prove that socially, women dominate men (as said in the resolution). Therefore, Pro's entire argument is irrelevant
-I do not need to provide case, therefore, my misconception should not be penalised

I refer Pro to [http://www.debate.org...]



Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
bpoudyalenternamehereTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made numerous assertions but failed to back any of them up or provide any sources. Neither side showed particularly good behavior.