The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Equal rights for women (I'm for)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,495 times Debate No: 39579
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




I'll allow my opponent to make his/her argument first, then I'll respond to their argument.


The argument is incredibly open-ended so I think the first step for both of us is to agree on precisely what equal rights or the general notion of "equality" means. The latter term, along with other vague liberal catchphrases like "justice" or "fairness", are usually passed around without any explicit definitions offered. They just sound good to most ears and fill people"s hearts with glee. After all, someone who stands for the opposite -- " inequality, injustice, and unfairness " -- will quickly be labeled a bigot, a racist, a misogynist, a homophobe etc even though all of human history has been one long record of the three. People like to 1) believe that they can change the world within their lifetime and 2) belong to a cause greater than themselves so it"s understandable that they are drawn to these positive terms.

One definition of equality is "correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank or ability". If people expect men and women to have identical outcomes in life, then that belief must come from the foundation that the two sexes are "equal" in those aforementioned qualities. They are not. Men and women are extremely different. And even if we were to ignore the physiological, chromosomal, skeletal, hormonal, emotional etc. differences between the two, I argue that the basic distinction between male and female -- the female as the carrier of the limited sex cell, the male as the carrier of the abundant one -- is enough to explain a lot of the world around us. It"s a fascinating field called evolutionary psychology and I"d be happy to go into the basics in a later post.

But back to equality...

When Thomas Jefferson penned the phrase "All men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence, he did not mean it literally. Economist Milton Friedman summarizes it well: the Founding Fathers "did not regard 'men' or as we would say today, 'persons' as equal in physical characteristics, emotional reactions, mechanical and intellectual abilities". After all, Jefferson was "an inventor, a scholar, an author, a statesman, a governor, President of the United States, Minister to France, founder of the University of Virginia " hardly an average man".

Literal inequality confronts us on a daily basis. I'm not going to prove that people are physically different because that basic truth is common sense -- we have different heights, weights, body types, hair types, facial features, skin colors, blood types, intelligences, fingerprints, abilities, preferences, hobbies etc. Human beings knew that they were different from each other long before the human genome project mapped out the 30,000 human genes.

From a physical perspective, men and woman are obviously different. Logically speaking, if they were truly equal, then there would be no way to differentiate between the two in the first place; neither would have anything unique by which he could identify them. Even the radical side of the female equality argument (feminists) have come up with a fancy delineation of sex vs. gender because the biological differences between male and female are so apparent. When it comes to physical differences, we"re probably in concurrence that men and women are different. Sex is not a social construct, it"s a biological reality that concerns everything from chromosomes to height to weight to physiological features to body organs etc.

What most modern leftists argue, of course, it that is not biological equality between the sexes that they seek but rather equality before the law or perhaps equality of outcome in society. Coupled with this notion is the general idea of tabula rasa, that we are born blank slates with no innate tendencies. So, as the radical feminists point out, if the only differences between men and women are a mere X or Y chromosome and the presence of a certain organ, then the differences between the two in life outcomes are due to cultural brainwashing. So, for example, if women choose to play with Barbie dolls, pursue less competitive majors and careers, and vote Democratic, it must be because society has indoctrinated and brainwashed them to behave that way. I will argue that male and female behavioral patterns (what feminists call "gender") are direct and logical evolutionary results of their physical differences (or "sex"). Expecting the two to ever be equal in outcome is not only a silly notion, it"s an impossible one.

In addition to the vagueness of the term "equality", we also have to discuss what we mean by rights. You"ll notice that the Amendments to the Constitution (and good legislation in general) deals with physical absolutes: People can vote at this age, people have a right to speech, alcohol is banned / allowed etc. The Equal Rights Amendment, in contrast, offers the same vague generalities:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

What is equality before the law? What rights do they speak of? Also, why should everyone possess the same rights if they are radically different? John Adams himself said that "there has not been a democracy in history that did not commit suicide". If people are radically different, is giving everyone equality " for example, an equal vote in a election or a guarantee of a minimal income " a suitable way or running a society and is it sustainable in the long run? I argue it is not. Any societal invention that does not appeal to the rules of reality will not last long.

These are just some points to ponder. I look forward to clarifying the debate further.
Debate Round No. 1


I agree with you up to a certain point. We are all different, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should be treated differently because of those differences themselves. We should accept one another for who we are, and should not be judged by others. Let god make his judgments, (if you're religious like me) that shouldn't be in the hands of anyone else but him. What I define by "equal rights," is not that we are all the "same." "Same," and "equal," are not the same thing. Let's not confuse the definitions of those very two seemingly same-meaning words. See link: See link for "equal.": What I define as "equal rights," is that women should have the same rights and privileges that men do, regardless of race, gender,economic situation, etc. But yet, despite fighting for this for years, women still don't have every right a man does. Like, men get more pay than women do.
On average, for every dollar a man is paid in a job, a women gets 75 cents for the same job. Not always the case, but it's still happening. In fact, there is still some challenges regarding career promotions, due to gender and family responsibilities. Sometimes, SOME men, not all men, (i'm a guy and luckily I'm not like this) are kind of like "Door-mat walkers", where they leave out a women's voice in business or think their opinion doesn't matter, or they think they're the "Dominant gender." How can this be true if we need one another for reproduction? Although it's been better than it used to be, it could be better. Those are just off the top of my head, but I'll research more about this later.


Judgment is perhaps the most common activity we perform. I understand what you mean in terms of "Don"t judge the moral quality of a person; morality can be argued to be subjective". But differentiating between people (and thus judging them by certain characteristics) is something we do on a daily basis -- we choose what people become our friends, what people become our partners, who we interact with and exchange goods with etc.

It is also something employers do. They judge the qualities of the candidates coming through the door and find who is the best fit for their organization. If there was no judgment or rational thought involved, you'd have to argue that it's a random process.

Let's address the wage gap issue on a macro level. Uncle Milt once again offers a perfect explanation of the basic economic theorem that explains why a wage gap for equal work could not exist (or exist for more than a short time) in a free market:

If the work was truly equal (which in itself is incredibly hard to prove since no two professions or employees are equal, even if they have the same title -- two "actors" or two "computer programmers" or two "scientists" does not mean that they are equal in their performance), then there would be no wage gap.

It's pretty simple. If a woman offered a lower wage for the same work, then no rational employer would hire the MAN. Why would anyone pay somebody more to do the same amount of work? If their sexism was so strong that it went against their profit motive, then at least they would suffer a financial loss.

Thus, wage discrimination laws HURT women. A woman or anyone -- a low-skilled laborer, an intern etc -- always has a low salary as a perk to offer employees to remain competitive, for whatever reason -- little experience, lack of education, absence from work force etc.. When you mandate that both the man and the woman are paid the same wage, then the employer suffers no cost for his sexism.

Whatever wage gap continues to exist between men and women is due not to structural sexism but to the fact that men and women DO NOT do equal work. For example, a study from the Department of Labor shows that full-time working women spend an average of 8.01 hours on the job while full-time men spent 8.75 hours, a 9% increase. Wouldn't it make sense that the men would earn more in the long run with such conditions?

In addition, the choice of majors is key. Traditional wage studies equate everything as equal -- a woman with a 4 year degree in Gender Studies working at Starbucks is seen as the same as a man with a 4 year degree in Computer Science working at a tech firm. The two majors are obviously quite different and thus merit different salaries. Controlling for majors reduces the wage gap even further.

Finally, there is the relationship between women and occupation. As Carrie Lukas writes in the Wall Street Journal, "women gravitate towards jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment, and greater flexibility.". Safer, more comfortable jobs generally lead to lower salaries. Risk and devotion to work merits higher salaries. That explains why many high-risk professions done by men, such as miners, earn more than low-risk professions done by women, such as teaching. When all these factors are controlled for in studies, the wage gap limits itself to a negligible amount (2-3%).

The next feminist counterpoint is what I addressed in my previous post, that the reason why women are less competitive than men and seek less stressful jobs and majors in the first place is because they have been indoctrinated by society or sexism or the almighty "patriarchy".

Here's where we delve into the truly fascinating part. A social scientist named Donald Brown studied over 6,000 cultures in his 1991 book Cultural Universals and found that increased male competitiveness and aggressiveness was found in all of them, suggesting that it's a human universal rather than a learned, cultural behavior. So why are men more competitive and aggressive and why do they take more risks in their careers?

You brought up a great point, perhaps even without realizing it. Reproduction is the key to the entire puzzle. You asked "how can this be true if we need another for reproduction"? That's accurate but not seeing the full picture. Yes, men and women need each other. However, the reality is that women do not need men as much as men need women. The reason for this is simple -- the women's expenditure in the reproductive market is much greater.

There are several reasons for this:

1) Eggs are scarce and thus valued, sperm is plentiful and thus worth much less. Basic supply and demand.

2) The women has to invest a greater amount of time (9 months) into the reproductive process; the man has to invest 10 minutes.

3) The cost of error is greater. If a woman mated with the wrong man, she'd carry his child for 9 months and have to take care of it afterwards. If a man mated with the wrong woman, he"d be able to reproduce with the "right" women within minutes.

4) Each baby takes a lot physically out of a women, making each successive pregnancy more difficult. Men don"t suffer such a drawback. Women will thus go for quality instead of quantity.

There's many other reasons but the point is this -- men know that they are expendable. It's a basic evolutionary consequence of being the sex with the limitless good. As a result of their design, they are forced to be more competitive to prove their value and worth to women. That is why men desire fame, power, money, prestige, achievement etc. much stronger than women. It is their way to impress potential mates.

It also explains why men don't really care about a women's voice in business, as you mentioned. Because the mating game is the most important one we all play and because women have a comparative advantage in it from their basic design, any additional factor they add to make themselves more attractive to men is devalued.

Finally, we once again address the issue of equal rights. It may come as a shock to find out that there have been dozens of "equal pay" legislative bills passed over the last half-century and, as you mentioned, they've had no effect except to make employers frightened of lawsuits. They decrease efficiency and hurt women, not the other way around. If anything, this should prove that words on a paper do not make people "equal" in outcome. You can't legislate morality. What exactly is an equal right if it's something the state can't mandate? It becomes, once again, an abstract concept that nobody can offer a clear definition for.
Debate Round No. 2


You're right on some of the things mentioned. But again, I think you're using the definition of "same," in contrast to "Equal." We're all "Different," I get that. And, even though we cannot fully be "Equal," in ourselves alone due to everyone being unique from everyone else, (job, house, income, etc.) as you have clearly expressed, we should at least have "Equal RIGHTS" here. We live in a free, democracy, where we can govern ourselves. So why should differences in people affect what rights they do and don't have? That's kind of like The Civil War done all over again. Excluding rights that all U.S. citizens have just because of skin color, which makes them different, which is a poor judgment. So why is gender considered a factor in what rights women have? If Thomas Jefferson would've thought that since women are U.S. citizens too, they would deserve the endowed Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness the Declaration of Independence gives us. And women need men more than men need women? You made some good points on that one, but just the same, here are some of my arguments against that.

1. Women actually give birth to the baby or babies, that are a part of the population.
2. To keep our population at a steady and equal level, the mother should give birth to at least one girl and boy, to replace the male and female, so they can have a boy and girl to keep our species going, but keep it at a reasonable level of an equal amount of men and women.
3. Because eggs are scarce, that means there is a limited time for reproduction and fertilization from men.

Thus, I think that we both need one another equally. An, while we're at it, how does that even effect equal rights?
And as far as working hours go, they probably didn't record every working-man or woman on the earth, so there's no way to get 100% accurate results on that. In fact, with people being born and dying, the tests would need to be taken again and again. It gives us some plausible results, but not 100% accuracy. And, speaking of which, The pay for the hours they work should be the same. Why? Not only would it help women in poverty or low income get more money, If the man is paid the same for each hour, if he works more than the woman does, (or vice versa) Then he/she is getting paid more in the end, although the pay for hours is still the same for the woman and man. And, the poverty/ low-income percent would go down a bit. In fact, women would be more encouraged to get a job if it pays more, also dropping down the unemployment rate, and raising more money for the economy. So, even though inequalities or differences exists between each human being, we are all equal in freedom and in this country itself.


You continually use the words "equal rights" but you still have not provided a list or definition of what such rights are. I have specifically delved into the only one you provided earlier -- "equal pay for pay work". What specific equal rights would you like women to have that they don't currently have? In other words, what do men possess -- legally, socially, naturally -- that women do not?

Since we're focused primarily on gender, I'm not going to dive extensively into the Civil War race analogy except to inform you that race is not just "skin color". The idea of race as a social construct is a 50-year-old liberal idea that is bizarre to anyone with their eyes open. Race is a biological classification, an imperfect one but a valid one, that categorizes the human species into multiple distinct groups, much like dogs are categorized into distinct breeds. Races differ on everything from skin type to facial features to bone density to blood type to genetic polymorphisms to intelligence to even propensity for a number of diseases. These are direct results of evolutionary pressures on groups of people within certain environments, environments that differed in climate, fertility of soil, food acquisition, threats and dangers etc.

Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers did not believe anyone, men or women, deserved rights. Rights were not endowed by men or by governments but by the Creator or, in other words, God. They were equal only in having access to these "natural rights".

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

The rights are unalienable so, by definition, they cannot be unequal. Those are the only "equal rights" that exist in nature. There is no God-given right to vote or to possess healthcare or to earn a minimum salary. The question to ask yourself about rights is "It it something that exists in nature?" Human beings, like any other species, absolutely want to avoid death, avoid captivity and be free to pursue their own desires. The natural rights are their natural state. As a result of being human, the natural rights are equally distributed to all people. Everything else is man-made and cannot be a right; it cannot be guaranteed.

I agree with your first two points. However, because men"s fertility doesn't decline that rapidly with age, they can reproduce at almost any point. A 50 year old man can easily start a family with a 25 year old woman. A 50 year old woman cannot do the same with a 25 year old man. Once again, you can add that to the list of reasons why women are more selective and, consequently, why men have to be more competitive to impress them.

It's funny to see you say that they "didn't record every working-man or woman on the earth". Well, obviously. There's not a single statistical study in history that has captured the entire human population. Scientists thus try to find a suitable size group that can act as a representative micro example of macro trend. If the studies I cited are invalid because they're not large enough in scope, then neither is your "75 cent on the dollar" statistic. It"s a general estimate, not a factual truth.

I once again repeat to you the same points. If men and women are doing equal work, they would be paid the exact same. If an employer decided to be sexist against either gender and pay more for the same amount of work, they would LOSE money. Thus, the pay gap cannot exist. Mandating that people be paid equally would, as Friedman noted, "reduce to zero the cost imposed on people who are discriminating for irrelevant reasons". It would HURT women.

Of course people would be encouraged to get a job if its pays more. But salaries are not some arbitrary number, they are an estimate of a person's contributions to the enterprise. Simply saying "Pay women more to reduce poverty" is just as fallacious as arguing to raise the minimum wage. Why not pay all people $100,000 a year? Wouldn't that help reduce poverty? The answer is no because if people did not contribute $100,000 of work to an employer, then nobody would hire them. Salaries are direct reflections of a person's value. You cannot force a company to increase a salary for an employee without receiving increased value from that employee. It is, by definition, unprofitable and thus unsustainable.

Finally, once again, if we are "all equal in freedom and in this country itself", what specific equal rights are you fighting for? Don't you already have what you're fighting for? What discrepancies between men and women do you presently see that you want to eliminate? What does one gender have that the other does not that is not a direct result of their genders?
Debate Round No. 3


Like I had stated before, one of the things I had clearly defined earlier was equal pay. I probably should've given more things that I want to change, but that's not to say I didn't give ANY definition of what I think of Equal Rights. Another thing I feel that women deserve that they don't have is in Saudi Arabia, women cannot get driver's licenses. Stuff like this doesn't just happen in America. In India, some road safety rules don't apply to women. In Yemen, they're only considered half a witness in court. In Saudi Arabia and Vatican City Women can"t vote. In Yemen, women cannot leave their house without their partners permission unless its a life or death or other emergency.Also, as far as it comes to the study of the hours men and women work, I agree with you. I never said it was a true fact. In fact, I said the opposite. It gives us results from the group of people tested, not everyone on earth, so it cannot be 100% accurate. And, due to births and deaths, again, we would need to have the test done again and again, so there's no ABSOLUTE way to prove that men work more hours. That's only applying to the group tested, not the population as a whole. It's an interesting thing to test, but sadly, since science is always changing, an so are the people on earth, this isn't possible. And as far as it comes to races, I know that race isn't just defined by skin color alone. There's more to it than that. But, however, what I was saying is that other people were JUDGING them unfairly BECAUSE of their skin color. Back then, they thought, "They don't have feelings, and shouldn't deserve rights white's do." That's KIND OF what is happening here. We aren't being open enough to how women feel about these kind of things. Put yourself in their shoes, and think, "What if I was denied these things? Would I like it? Is it fair?" also, even though our Creator would probably want us to have unalienable rights, Thomas Jefferson wrote this himself, first of all, and second of all, it's not like God actually told him that, right? I believe in God and all, but come now, Thomas Jefferson probably would've told everyone else if God actually talked to him and told him to right that down. There's probably more I'm forgetting, but that's just current knowledge that I have.


All institutions that grant certain rights and privileges from the state limit themselves to certain people. For example, you mentioned driver's licenses. We currently don't discriminate by gender in the United States when it comes to that issue but we do discriminate by other factors: visual impairment, drunken driving, history of crime. It's not a question of "How would blind people feel if we denied them the right to drive?", it's a question of "Does this group of people promote the initial reason why the institution was created or the right was granted in the first place"? It's not about being fair or equal, it's about serving a purpose for society. That goes for various rights and licenses the state gives -- the right to vote (which we deny to felons), medical licenses (which we deny to people who haven't graduated medical school), legal licenses (which we deny to people who don't pass the bar exam) and so on.

You may think it's offensive to hear "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote or drive or be represented fully in court" but there's a reason that countries and cultures instituted those laws. They're cultural rights, not natural ones. The mere fact that they can denied is proof that they don't exist in nature. These occurrences, which you probably look at as grievances, are not mere arbitrary decisions. It wasn't accidental, for example, that women weren't allowed to vote in the United States for a century and a half. The Founding Fathers didn't just accidentally forget about women. Even if you cite sexism as an explanation, it's still a reason why people instituted these ideas. It wasn't random process, it was methodical. Thus, every debate about extending an equal right to men and women has to delve into whether the intrinsic differences between the two will allow for the purpose of why the right was given by the state in the first place.

Certain races were denied the right to vote not because nobody cared about their feelings but precisely because white people felt that it would not fulfill the purpose of why voting was invented in the first place. It would pave the way for their loss of power, which they were using to establish the voting system in the first place. Discrimination did not just affect women and blacks --- it affected plenty of whites. There were plenty of restrictions "--age limits, land property ownership, tax contributions -- that prohibited white people from voting.

The Founding Fathers realized that giving everyone the right to vote was unsustainable. This is best expressed by this quote, often attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy"

The reasoning is the same -- we want to establish democratic rights in order to give people control over their government. But giving everyone democratic rights will result in the loss of control over government. Therefore, to maintain why the institution was created in the first place, we shall not give everyone these democratic rights".

I'm not going to specifically debate whether there is something different between men and women that means only the former should vote, be allowed to drive, be allowed to leave the house etc. My only point is that the differences between the two have to be considered when deciding whether to grant them a legal right, much like the differences between blind people and people with normal vision are considered when deciding who gets the right to drive. Simply saying "Men and women are equal" does not make it so, and the "equal rights" which you seek, even if you deny it, are the direct conclusions of that belief. Each issue should be considered by itself.
Debate Round No. 4


As far as it comes to cultural rights, it's defined as "rights that allow communities and their people access to culture, arts and production of art, protect "human rights," (which I'll define more clearly later) which ensures happiness and joy to the people and their communities, being able to take part in elections, and much more. "Human Rights" is defined as, "certain inherited "egalitarian" (meaning the same for every person.) rights entitled to each and every human being."
Women not being able to vote in Saudi Arabia and Vatican City is itself a violation of Cultural Rights. If they can't take part in elections, then why are men allowed to do so? And just because it's how their country's people believe and "that's the way their laws are" doesn't necessarily justify it. Cultures and its people constantly change, and so do laws. Each person on earth is equal in freedom. Discrimination amongst genders is not acceptable, as we are judging by a human-quality, or something associated with oour own species. Rights don't have to be natural to benefit both genders. I'm not saying each human is the same, but we should have the same rights. Change is happening in our world, whether it'd be government, politics, etc. In those other countries I mentioned earlier, gender-discrimination is still ongoing. In a way, it's actually oppressing, or very controlling. You think it's okay to just allow unjustified control of gender? I don't. What do (some) men have against women in the first place? Were judging on something that we are different from one another on. But why? There's no call for that at all. If we were all the same (gender, age, thoughts and feelings, interests, etc.) The world would be a very boring place. If women in another country can't drive, how are they supposed to get around if they have to travel long distances, like getting to a place several miles away? Walk? Oh yeah, that's really fast. And what about women who can't even vote? Their opinion is pretty much ignored. Any justification for this? I didn't think so. What about road safety? That's concerning life and death there. That shouldn't be ignored. And spousal-permission is needed to leave your own house? Any good reason for why that's needed? Other than keep the women like an animal in a cage, I probably can't say. Half a witness in court? Yet she's a full,complete human being? Real rational. You'll have to forfeit Round 5, so we'll have an equal amount of arguments, since I didn't make one for the first round. Good luck!


MCUOfficial forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MCUOfficial 3 years ago
1) I'm not calling Jefferson a liar. I thought Milton Friedman captured my point more eloquently than I could so I included his words instead of my own. We are created equal in our access to the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We are not created equal in our abilities or our genders.

2) I'm illustrating the point that if a modification to an existing institution destroys the original purpose of the institution, it is not beneficial. I was specifically addressing the right to vote and demonstrating how it is NOT a universal human right.

3) It's not a perception, it's reality. If a woman (or anyone) came into a job and "I can do the same amount of work for less", no employer would hire the man. I am using YOUR idea -- that IF the woman truly is doing the exact SAME WORK, then the employer would not hire the man.

5) This isn't an academic journal. Take me at my word or Google "Carrie Lukas Wall Street Journal gender gap" if you're interested.

6) If you're actually interested in this, I'll once again repeat my points. The modern corporate market has existed for 100 years. The mating market for humans has existed for 200,000. Our basic impulses as organisms is not to "climb the corporate ladder" -- it's to survive and reproduce. In this critical market, the earliest economic exchange in human history, women have the comparative advantage as a result of having the limited resource, less room for error, and greater investment. Men have to compete because they're expendable.

When a good is in short supply, any additional perks will be devalued. For example, if Apple has 1 million iPhones but there are 10 million people who want to buy them, tossing in "free headphones" will not be that valued -- there is already more than enough demand. No different when it comes to matting -- women are the supply and their additional attributes will always be LESS valued than men's.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
1) CON: "When Thomas Jefferson penned the phrase "All men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence, he did not mean it literally."

Since you don't give a figurative interpretation, I have to conclude you are calling Jefferson a liar.

2) CON: "John Adams himself said that "there has not been a democracy in history that did not commit suicide"."

This has nothing to do with gender equality, and is an argument against democracy in general.

3) PRO: "On average, for every dollar a man is paid in a job, a women gets 75 cents for the same job."

You need a citation for this. I'm almost certain this is simply false. For the same job, women are paid the same rate as men, because it would be illegal to pay them otherwise.

Over the entire workforce, your statistic is more accurate, but as you stated it is extremely misleading.

4) CON: " If a woman offered a lower wage for the same work, then no rational employer would hire the MAN. Why would anyone pay somebody more to do the same amount of work?"

This totally ignores the (misguided) perception that women simply cannot do "the same work" at the "same standard" as men, thereby allegedly justifying paying women less.

5) CON: "As Carrie Lukas writes in the Wall Street Journal..."

No citation.

6) CON: "Because the mating game is the most important one we all play and because women have a comparative advantage in it from their basic design, any additional factor they add to make themselves more attractive to men is devalued."

This doesn't make any sense. How does making one more attractive lead to devaluation?


I stopped reading here. I found CON's line of reasoning to be repulsive, but PRO's argumentation was extremely weak and did not address the bulk of CON's arguments. I will thus leave all scoring neutral, except for conduct for FF. This was not a good debate, IMHO.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden of proof. He never even tried. The closest he came to being on point in his opening argument was asking a question: "why should everyone possess the same rights if they are radically different?" Thus, he dropped all arguments and loses.