The Instigator
MiloOurSavior
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DavidMancke
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Feminism Is Cancer

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...
DavidMancke
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 771 times Debate No: 89271
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

MiloOurSavior

Pro

Just to shortly begin, I feel as if todays face of feminism has become destructive. I would like to hear my opponent describe her (because we know no guy will argue against me) thoughts of this ideology, and why it is beneficial to todays society.
DavidMancke

Con

The member offering this topic provided no definitions or context, so I will supply those here in my acceptance round.

Resolution of Fact: The topic is a truth claim, and burden of proof is shared. When judging, voters should give the win to the competitor that best demonstrates the resolutions is accurate or not and provides the most compelling examples/evidence.

The topic donates to rather provocative and troubling advocacy, that women should not be equal to men. As such critiques of the affirmative advocacy should be considered for votes as well. If the aff really wants to spend time/characters critiquing the negative advocacy, knock yourself out. Who am I to stop the Aff from shooting themselves in the foot ;-)

Definitions:

Feminism: ideology or social movement to define, establish and achieve equal political, economic, personal and social rights for women.
**Note; conflating this definition of feminism with something more extreme should be viewed as fallacious and extra-topical.

Cancer: (metaphorical; social) a practice or phenomenon perceived to be evil and/or destructive while being hard to contain or eradicate.

I promise the voters some quality entertainment here, and encourage them to consider mentioning anything they found funny or clever in the comments or RFD. by the time we're done here the Aff's chronometers are going to be more sanitary than surgical instruments.

Go Falls!
Debate Round No. 1
MiloOurSavior

Pro

I would like to say that this was my first debate upon this website, so I was not sure if I was the one with the starting argument, or if I was only to introduce a topic, my apologies.

Since I was not descriptive enough in my opener I will now try to be more specific. I do not advocate the inequality between a males and females. I admire forms of feminism that are against genuine abuse, disempowerment, and exploitation. Western feminism in my opinion seems to be shrouded in a passive-aggressive "all bark no bite" resentment that criticizes women for embracing their femininity, disdains them for using their sexuality and bullies them into feeling weak and oppressed for choosing to be housewives, caretakers and full time mothers. I have found myself despising the majority of this movement because it is filled with hypocrisy and only see what they want to see. I have been in debates where common sense and logic was useless with them. Feminists state that men and women are identical when it comes down to the brain, but many feminists also support LGBT (transexuals specifically). This itself is contradictory because a transexual emotionally and psychologically feels that they belong to the opposite sex, but how can you support this, and support the opinion that men and women are identical, and that society has made them different? I feel as if feminists are fueled by their hatred of white men. Many females at my college are feminists and tbh feminism has ruined relationships I have had with people. There are imbalances with both genders but feminism never seems to talk about the imbalances that men have.

And to respond to your comment, my username represents my love for a journalist by the name of Milo Yiannopoulos, if you do so choose to look him up, then you could understand why I adore him!!
DavidMancke

Con

"All the single ladies, All the single ladies!"

Lets face it; it's a catchy tune. Don't like it..? Fine! The Lawrence Welk show reruns on PBS all the time, lamer!

Regarding my opponents rhetoric above:

It bears mentioning that I took this debate to repudiate a rotten advocacy. After reading through the Aff's "case" it is abundantly clear that they are conflating their own negative perceptions and/or experience with the term, "feminism." More to the point, all his remarks are purely speculative. The Aff doesn't so much as provide reasons for believing the narrative he offered is true, much less provide any evidence to support the sweeping and fallacious generalizations he makes.

More specifically, the Aff is not resolutional, and puts his foot directly in the pile I cautioned about in my acceptance. I offered the definition of feminism:

Feminism: ideology or social movement to define, establish and achieve equal political, economic, personal and social rights for women.
**Note; conflating this definition of feminism with something more extreme should be viewed as fallacious and extra-topical.

Aff conflates his own supposed experience with some self-identified feminists into a general rule that is extra topical and fallacious, a hasty generalization fallacy to be more specific. (Hurley's Logic) There is nothing inherent within feminism as defined here to advocate against a woman's right to be a wife, mother, chef, lawyer, champion bowler, expert fish angler or anything else. It doesn't inherently suppress female sexuality. What nutcase would want that!?!? All that feminism as we have defined it speaks to is equality. Any implication my opponent tries to make beyond that is superfluous dribble. Maybe he read it in Maxim magazine? Who knows.

I would speculate that my opponent is engaging the availability heuristic to reach some of these ideas, but that is really neither here nor there. The point is it's all fallacious, and he isn't even consistent in that.

The Aff goes as far to remark that he does not advocate for the inequality of women. That's terrific! It also means he is not upholding his burden based on the definition of feminism provided. If he wants to shift on himself and support my angle, well hell yeah, okay. "This is Wall Street Dr Burry, if you offer us free money we are going to take it." Just don't vote Aff when Aff is clearly supporting negative advocacy.

Let's take a minute and address his claim that feminist support for the LGBT community is contradictory. It is not. the point of feminism is the pursuit of equality. Some or many feminists recognize the LGBT community as marginalized, and support equality for that marginalize community. Feminist support of the LGBT community makes the feminism cause and definition provided more consistent. Don't make me go PC principle bruh!

I also want to respond to my opponent's stated super fav, bestie, "journalist" Milo Yiannopoulos. This guy works for Breitbart.com, and that's all you need to know. Getting news from Breitbart is like getting surgery from a drunk in a port-a-potty; not exactly recommended.

So we've answered the "aff analysis" and I have about 4,900 characters left. I would like to use them to take about a few celebrities I don't like, and why.

Tom Cruise: He kept Katie Holmes locked in his basement for how long..?! How this monster is still roaming free is beyond me. Wait, it must be the damned Church of Scientology.

David Miscavige: If Tom Cruise is bad, David Miscavige is the devil incarnate. The guy beats his colleagues in meeting, sent his own wife off to die in a cult prison and thinks that the ghosts of aliens make people park in two spots.

Sean Hannity: Witless garbage peddling turd. Also, his favorite food is the speech center of a dolphin's brain. That kind of evil can't be seen at a Slayer concert.

Miley Cyrus: She's not country. I don't care! Yes the Jolene cover was great, but it would be stupid to call her country for that one song and her insipid show from a decade ago. If I put on a Fez and speak with a British accent it doesn't make me Dr Who.

Dinesh D'Souza: Narcissism pretending to be informed. He must have taught Hannity's classes at Oral Roberts University.

Grumpy Cat: How can you be that pissed when you've never worked a day in your life? His mood is clearly faked for PR.

There's many more. Maybe I will have the chance to get back to this in the next round

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2
MiloOurSavior

Pro

MiloOurSavior forfeited this round.
DavidMancke

Con

My opponent forfeit the last round. It also bears mentioning that they never provided examples suggesting that feminism is "evil" or difficult to curtail. If fact we can look to certain areas in the developing and developed world that show the exact opposite, that equality for women has difficulty taking root and expanding.

Based on this forfeiture, and the preponderance of the examples provided, judges should vote Opp!

Now on to some more festive celebrity bashing!

Justin Beiber: What can be said about Justin Beiber that has not already been said about Cholera: He makes people vomit and defecate to the brink of death.

Macaulay Culkin: Failed Justin Beiber attempt by evil scientists in the eighties. Thank God he got hooked on methadone and went away.

Mark Zuckerberg: If you donate billions of dollars to yourself and get to write it off on your taxes, you should have to share a prison cell with Karl Rove for the duration.

Karl Rove: Apparently his mother has apologized to the nation and the world. If saying your sorry makes it all better then my last two ex-wives should be back any moment.

Tony Danza: Mr. Danza's recent suicide is tragic, but not at all unexpected. It was apparently his failure on the dating website E-harmony that finally pushed him over the edge.

Business Cat: Largely responsible for the banking/mortgage meltdown of 2007/2008. This cat shows why so many faiths say greed is at the heart of evil.

Lewis Ranieri: Don't think for a minute your gonna skate by Lew. Sure, it's not all your fault. But it was your idea without precaution that caused all that BS. You have to take your lashes like everyone else. I bet was his family pet. Purr nothing A-hole, and trim that ugly beard. You look like a just for men commercial.

Too many to name.. I can't stand celebrities.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 month ago
DavidMancke
Impact of the anarchy-bent left: 0%

Impact of the racist and recalcitrant right: Donald Trump

I think we are done with your imagined comparison.
Posted by Tom-The-Hypocrit 1 month ago
Tom-The-Hypocrit
milo our Savior.

I used to support milo too for all the things he does and says. But i stopped because for the things he doesn't say. If you don't know already he has many followers that are racist, many friends that like to believe in aryan supremacy and a genuine dissaproval of women (although he hides it well). Hs boss at breitbart has repeatedly said things like removing all blacks hispanics and jews from america. Support the alt-right? One of its members is the former KKK leader David duke. I have heard milo talk about feminists and say that they preach one thing but do something entirely different. This is also true for milo. He has been to may parties with ultra-right european faction leaders (dutch ultra-right) and supports many racists through his journalism.

What many people fail to see is that all he talks about are the extreme sides of the left, not the normal left, but the bordering anarchist extreme left. Many of his followers have only seen this through the internet. You would be hard pressed to find this extremism in the real world. He exaggerates massively in all i this points such as political correctness (parts i agree with, parts i don't).

If you don't believe me take a look at Ben Shapiros explanation on the alt-right. It's horrifying. (ben used to be a colleague of milo's and a senior editor at the daily wire). I don't support all of bens views tho lol. Please research milos background and don't believe in the person he makes himself out to be.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 month ago
DavidMancke
I don't, but on preponderance of the testimony, unless everyone with a bad report is a liar the guy is a card carrying sociopath.
Posted by tommylibertarian1 1 month ago
tommylibertarian1
Do you know him personally? I have no opinion as its hard to sort out the info.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 month ago
DavidMancke
Fair enough, I guess I thought it flies since he runs in circles with celebrities, and I certainly can't stand the guy.
Posted by tommylibertarian1 1 month ago
tommylibertarian1
COB David Miscavige is hardly who I would call a "celebrity" maybe only to Scientologists or those who know anything about Scientology lol
Posted by DavidMancke 10 months ago
DavidMancke
Noo! That was the only good part. Ah well.
Posted by Emmarie 10 months ago
Emmarie
I didn't comment about Con's cracks at celebrities because I intentionally ignore celebrities so much that I didn't get the jokes or know who many of them even are.
Posted by DavidMancke 10 months ago
DavidMancke
There was a report on Bloomberg this morning that forfeiture of debates is linked to the rapid decreases in honey bee populations, so don't forfeit this debate! If you do your grandchildren may never know natural honey.

-Bill Sheridan, 1865
Posted by DavidMancke 10 months ago
DavidMancke
@MiloOurSavior

What do you save, exactly...? Could it be a buck or two... by dialing 1-800-CALL-ATT..?

Just wondering if I'm debating Carrot Top, because I always wanted to mop the floor with Carrot Top's hair.

Let me know CT!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Emmarie 10 months ago
Emmarie
MiloOurSaviorDavidManckeTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Argument points to Con for providing definitions to key terms, for citing pros failure to provide any argument that isn't speculative, and for rebutting Pro's fallacious arguments. I didn't award a conduct point to Con because of Pro'sff, but that Pro did not offer a rebuttal to Con's argument and counterclaims in round 3, Pros argument won decisively.