The Instigator
elysian85
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
royalpaladin
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Feminism is based upon female entitlement to male achievements.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,943 times Debate No: 25223
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (316)
Votes (3)

 

elysian85

Pro

I welcome the challenge of engaging a proponent of Feminism who is based in the United States of America, familiar with its laws and culture, and willing to pursue this topic dispassionately.

Rules of Engagement:

1. Argumentation ethics apply.
2. Semantics shall not apply.
3. Anecdotal evidence shall be considered irrelevant.
4. Sources must be cited following assertions with notation and the URL provided to bottom of round.
5. Quotations shall be considered irrelevant.
6. Round 1 is acceptance.
7. No new arguments shall be presented in Round 5.

Definitions:

* These definitions are chosen from different sources in an attempt to avoid redundancy within definition (e.g. "entitlement - a state of entitling" etc.).

Feminism - a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. [1]

based - a fundamental principle or groundwork; foundation; basis. [2]

female - a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and a beardless face; a girl or woman. [3]

entitlement - a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement. [4]

male - a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man. [5]

achievements - something that has been accomplished esp by hard work, ability, or heroism. [6]

Improper Form:

Any of the following mischaracterizations will be seen as concession of the debate (i.e. one warning may be given, whereas the second results in consession to the opposition) -

1) Superiority/inferiority of genders based upon opinion rather than objective, biological attributes.
2) Broad cultural depictions of male as "rapist," female as "victim."

Notes:

Thank you ahead of time to Con for agreeing to engage this topic. Please be sure to delay your voting till the conclusion of this debate.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
royalpaladin

Con

I accept. Note that if even one strand of feminism or one feminist does not support female entitlement to male achievements, you negate because his argument, by the wording of the resolution, must be all of feminism is based on female entitlement to male achievements.

Also, since this resolution is about whether or not feminism is based on female entitlement to male achievements, the burden is on him to prove that this is the central tenet of feminism. If I prove that this is not a central tenet of feminism, the resolution is false and you negate.
Debate Round No. 1
elysian85

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

Prior to the presentation of my argument, Con has asserted that any individual who regards themselves as feminist must hold the belief of my proposition. As such, this is a fallacy of division and is irrelevant to this discourse.

As Pro, I assume the burden of proof in the resolution and Con will attempt to refute my arguments as such that feminism is not based on female self-entitlement to male achievements.

The defining proposition of this debate is predicated around feminism's most basic logical fallacy: If all people deserve equal political, economic, and social rights, people exist together successfully. Females exist together successfully. Therefore, females deserve equal political, economic, and social rights.

Categorically, there is a flaw in this ideological self-entitlement. Notice that roughly half of the human species is not represented by feminism. Therefore, feminists lay claim to equal treatment without having to reciprocate. This has been accomplished in a myriad of ways, which will be defined throughout this discourse.

Argument 1: Human Biology defines Human Needs

Citing the non-aggression principle, one may arrive at this conclusion about the difference between human needs and human wants:

1. If satisfying a human need is physiologically necessary to physical and psychological health, then lack of provision and protection to humans results in physical and psychological deprivation.
2. Wanting or preferential behavior is negatively correlated with physical and psychological deprivation.
3. Therefore, provision and protection are universally human needs which take priority over wanting or preferential behavior.

Argument #2: Complimentary Opposites

If male and female exist as anatomically complimentary to one another as per biology, then each of the sexes is of a specific physiological disposition in nature, and thus, human biology has assigned them basic jobs to be performed in the cycle of life and death. Males, given the task of provision and protection, serve as agents of death (e.g. hunting/killing game, warriors, etc.). Females, given the task of birth and nurturing, serve as agents of life (e.g. live birth, care-takers, etc.). Therefore, in the interest of humankind to survive, a union must be struck between agents of death and agents of life.

This union has been historically called the family, and it describes a specific, role-based architecture incorporated out of necessity rather than cosmetic appeal. However, it is important to denote the distinctions in agency between the sexes before addressing the family structure.

Male biology, by default, is a competitive altruistic agency[1] which entails personal sacrifice for the common good out of necessity. As the agent of death, the male biology expresses itself via a significantly higher proportion of testosterone when compared to females, as the average daily production of it is 20 times higher. Features are increased bone and muscle mass as well as facial hair while the key behavioral feature is increased risk-taking. The brains of males are also physically larger – myelinated fiber (white brain matter) length is approximately 176,000 km, whereas female reaches 149,000 km. Testosterone production directly increases attention, memory, and spatial capacity.[2]

Given this context, males are genetically predisposed to perform risky tasks which require strength, agility, and dexterity in the physical dimension; in the mental, males possess higher capacities of focus, information recall, and third-dimensional imagery. By combining powerful physiology with tactical psychology, one arrives at the conclusion that males do the hunting, hard work, and remain stoic. Therefore, as the competitively altruistic male biology dictates, the abilities males are born into are valuable, however, the male is without intrinsic value and must demonstrate it by his utility in furthering the human race. Self-interested behavior in men bares heavy consequences in society.

Conversely, female biology, by default, is a self-interested agency, in that females must survive for humanity to thrive out of necessity. As the agent of life, the distinction to be made is that each individual female is intrinsically valuable by nature of her biology. The uterus and ovaries along with a thicker corpus callosum connecting the hemispheres of the female brain are her vital differences from her male counterpart. A more empathetic disposition, an emphasis on acting with the consensus, and the nurturing behaviors of breast-feeding and child-rearing all demonstrate a more proportionate ratio of testosterone to estrogen in the female physiology.

Thus, where the female is praised for expressing her sense of self and self-interest, the male is berated to remain stoic and to hone his abilities as a societal and evolutionary reminder that he exists solely for the purpose of female survival. From this complimentary balance, two truths are born: there must be a leader and a follower to every human relationship, and that if one is to be a leader, one must be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect his follower(s): one's own life.

Argument #3: Biological Theft

As it is in the best interest of humanity that females survive at all costs, the ones who must bear that cost are the males. In return for his life, the female reciprocates with her service. I have now defined the architecture of the family: a father as leader and a mother as follower.

History builds a vivid picture of what male achievements constitute:

Formal logic, which this debate hinges upon, was conceived by a group of competitively altruistic males as it became a necessity in the growing Greek populace to discern truth from falsehood, to provide an empirical and standard method of forming critical thought, and to create the foundation upon which the modern legal format stands. History does not remember these males on the simple predicate that they were men: it remembers them because they conquered new ground and achieved for all humankind.

Skyscrapers reaching 100+ stories appear on several continents. Infrastructures such as road, rail, canal, and air-travel have been tested and refined for thousands of years - resulting in the losses of untold numbers of males in their testing phases and constructions.

Electricity. Pasteurization. Computers. Automobiles. Radio. Glass. Vaccination. Republics. Combustion. Television. Internet. Physics. Economics. Geography. Science. And most importantly, males gave birth to the concept of freedom. And that cost was high.

This and every creation, mental or physical, is founded upon this innate male agency to provide provision or protection to society, and through that end, foster a male achievement.

1. If male sacrifice provisions and protects modern society and a comfortable standard of living for humans, then modern life is comfortable.
2. Feminists deserve all the rights of males, including male careers, male decisions, and male sexuality.
3. Therefore, male sacrifice is unnecessary.

I pose this thought in the rhetorical: remove all male sacrifice in today's modern society. What's left?

In the event that the female should choose to disrupt biology and perform all the duties of a male and all the duties of a female, she has committed to what is defined above as self-entitlement. Male self-entitlement to other males' achievements produces jealousy, larceny, grand theft, corruption, dictatorship, and warfare predicated on invasion. Female self-entitlement to males' achievements produces feminism. Thus, female self-entitlement is based upon male achievements.

[1] http://www.epjournal.net...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
royalpaladin

Con

I noted that in order to prove that based on the blanket wording of the resolution, my opponent needed to prove that all feminists hold this belief. My opponent countered by claiming that this is a fallacy of division. Unfortunately, he does not grasp the nature of the fallacy of division, which holds that if an object has a property, then claiming all of its parts must have that property is fallacious.

Let me give examples to explain why this fallacy does not apply. If I claim that a Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean and that a Boeing 747 has jet engines, and then conclude that one of its jet engines can fly unaided across the ocean, I have committed the fallacy of division because I am assuming that part of the object has the same property as the whole. In this case, the parts of the object are not independent entities; rather, the engines, wings, etc. literally come together to comprise that object. Now, suppose I have a tablet computer and a desktop. Both are independent objects that we categorize with the set name "computer". If I claim that in order to prove that computers as a whole have touchscreens, both desktops and tablets must have them, my opponent cannot claim that I am committing the fallacy of division since the two types of computers do not come together to create a computer; rather, they are independent objects that we describe with a set called "computer". Similarly, different feminist ideologies are not parts of a feminist theory; rather, feminism is a term used to describe a set of independent theories with specific characteristics. In order to prove that the set used to describe all of the objects has a characteristic, he needs to prove that every object in the set has that characteristic. Feminist Separatism is an ideology that advocates the creation of female-only societies without any materials, objects, inventions, etc. from males. This ideology does not advocate using male achievements, so the set of theories fitting under feminism do not all have that characteristic. My opponent does not fulfill his burden and you automatically negate.

He next gives an unsourced argument that contends that "If all people deserve equal political, economic, and social rights, people exist together successfully. Females exist together successfully. Therefore, females deserve equal political, economic, and social rights." He then states that this excludes males.

I would like to see the source for this nonsensical strawman. I have never seen any feminist use this type of flawed reasoning, and I highly doubt that he has either. In any case, even if he gives an example of a single feminist who does this, this argument is not a property of the set "feminism" because not all of the feminist ideologies argue this.

More importantly, however, this claim is entirely fallacious because it pretends that feminists advocate equal rights based on consequentialist reasons (i.e. it helps people exist together successfully), but feminism argues that people should have these rights because they are human rights, and that they deserve these rights regardless of the benefit to society. Feminists support these rights deontologically and claim that they are natural extensions of human dignity, and not that people have them because it is good for social cohesion. Feminists also note that these rights extend to all humans, so they are not excluding males. In fact, the nature of rights is entirely reciprocal because rights imply moral entitlements, meaning that all individuals, regardless of gender, are due the same protections. Males will not kill females, for example, and females will not kill males, because both groups have the right to life.

Undoubtedly, he will respond to this by claiming that I am playing semantic games and that what he really means is that males are entitled to things like rights and an education because other males contributed to them. He is going to say that since females did not create them, they do not have any claim to them and that feminism is wrongfully taking those things from males.

What feminism does is explain that this entitlement mindset is nonsense. Males are not any more entitled to social goods than females just because other males created them; in fact, this claim is precisely what he condemns: theft. The ideas and objects that people create belong to them and not to people who share common characteristics with them and thus the people who share characteristics with them have no more claim to them than others. Feminism notes that if males who feel bad about themselves because they are worthless losers and have no achievements of their own can act as leeches claiming partial ownership over the achievements of others, then there is no reason that females cannot also do the same thing by claiming kinship due to common humanity. Feminism is not advocating entitlement to male-owned achievements; it is advocating the equitable distribution of goods that belong to everyone or to no one.

In addition, feminists do not want access to goods like rights and education because they want to dominate men; rather, they want basic rights and goods so that they can also contribute to society in a meaningful manner and advance fields such as science and philosophy. Feminists are not trying to take things without reciprocally giving; rather, they are attempting to make sure that females can reciprocate and give back to society. My opponent's brand of anti-feminism would have them benefit, at least marginally through a better lifestyle, from such benefits without giving them an opportunity to return the favor. My opponent might claim that the reciprocal behavior stems from the reproductive capacities of females, but note that this capacity remains the same regardless of the returns that males in a male-dominated society would give. Females are still giving birth regardless of the existence of voting or electricity, for example. So, he argues that not reciprocating for advantages is wrong, but then denies females the opportunity to reciprocate. Feminism, however, wishes to help females gain that chance.

Argument 1 attempts to derive the notion that society should force people to prioritize needs over wants through the nonaggression principle. This completely contradicts the nonaggression principle, however; the principle is "a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual's property or person (which may also be considered that person's property), no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination or the principle of self-ownership." [5] What the principle notes is that even if an action has a positive consequence for society or even for the victim of aggression, forcing them to do specific actions is immoral because it violates the principle of autonomy. This completely contradicts my opponent's claim that society should force people into specific roles for consequentialist ends; such an action would be immoral according to the moral philosophy that my opponent decided to champion. This, ultimately, is what feminists argue; rather than forcing people into specific roles, feminists champion the right to autonomy for all people, not just males. His first argument is self-contradictory and flows negative.
Even if you buy that we need to prioritize needs over wants, note that this still promotes the goals of feminism. Under traditional societies, females do not have control over their own bodies and were routinely subjected to such autonomy-violating procedures as marital rape, arranged marriages, and domestic violence. Because they were unable to obtain higher education and seek employment, they had no escape valve from situations that threatened their well-being. Feminism advocates fulfilling this need by grating females the capacity to be safe.

Argument 2 attempts to claim that gender roles are natural and therefore just. He first argues that males are agents of death and females are agents of life. The problem is that these are socially assigned roles; there is no reason that either gender is intrinsically incapable of pursuing either role. He claims that men are selfishly altruistic based on necessity and cites a study that refutes almost every one of his claims. According to his study, which examines 38 students and attempts to extrapolate the results to all of humanity, when in a group setting in which active and passive roles existed, males took advantage of the active roles every single time, not out of necessity, but rather out of a desire to show off for the females. If females were psychologically predisposed to not exhibit this type of altruistic behavior, then females would have no desire to take the active role and would have taken the passive one. The study notes, however, that females wanted to take the active roles but that the males prevented them from doing so and instead assigned them the stereotypically clerical (passive) role. What this indicates is that there is nothing intrinsic to human nature that prevents females from taking such roles; in fact, in the absence of males, they did. Rather, it was the males who were forcing them to not have those roles that they wanted and were capable of performing. His justification for gender roles is based on the intrinsic difference between males and females by which males want to take active roles and females want to take passive roles, but that difference does not exist according to the study he cited. The difference in role allocation was a result of male forcefulness, and not a result of psychological orientation.

Moreover, the notion that females are supposed to be biologically selfish is absolutely false. What the study notes is not that females are likely to be selfish and males altruistic, but rather that males were more likely to engage in heroic-type behavior. All altruistic behavior is not heroic behavior, however. Females engage in altruism even in traditional gender roles since they become the primary care-givers of children. Both genders are inherently capable of altruism.

He next attempts to justify gender roles based on physiological differences. He notes that males produce more testosterone than females and have larger brains. While it is true that the male brain is larger, female brains have a greater surface area, more nerve cells, and more cellular connections, meaning that the female brain is more efficient at processing data and using both sides of the brain [1] In addition, the female brain has better memory skills and is much more creative than the brain male is [1]. This is empirically proven by the fact that more females graduate from high school, college, and graduate schools than males [2], have higher GPAs[3], as well as the fact that in July 2012, studies noted that in developed nations in which males and females receive equal educational opportunities, females have a higher IQ than males do [4]. What this means is that even if you believe my opponent's argument that society should force people into specific roles based on characteristics, you still vote for me because feminism advocates putting females in intellectual fields based on their inherent capacity to succeed while my opponent's brand of anti-feminism would not grant females roles that they are suited for.

Most importantly, however, even if the evidence I provided is completely disregarded, my opponent's argument devolves into a contradictory notion that argues that we should have gender roles because on average, members of a specific gender will be better at performing tasks than members of the other gender. This ignores, however, the fact that some members of the other gender will be better at performing the tasks at hand than the average member of the gender that is stereotypically assigned that role, and thus prevents those individuals from fulfilling their potential. For example, I have an IQ of 148, was the salutatorian of my competitive private high school, had an extremely high SAT score, was a National Merit Finalist, attend an Ivy League institution, etc. I have more than outstripped my average male counterparts in terms of educational ability. My dream is to become a lawyer. Why should I be denied that dream on the basis that my opponent believes that the average male is better suited to be a lawyer than the average female? Why should a male who is less qualified than I am have that advantage while I do not? Why should I be resigned to a life of cooking, cleaning, and baby-producing for no reason other than the fact that I have a specific set of reproductive organs? Feminism advocates abolishing this type of categorical reasoning and attempts to judge people based on their abilities rather than on their characteristics. This, ultimately, fits my opponent's claim that we should assign people to roles based on their abilities better than his argument that we should blanketly force people into roles based on averages. Even if you believe his "roles" analysis, you still negate because feminism advocates giving people what they deserve based on their qualities while his brand of anti-feminism does not.

On to Argument 3. He first lists a variety of male achievements and claims that, absent males, these things would not exist. He conveniently ignores the fact that most of these achievements were conceived of in an era in which females were not permitted to seek higher education and were resigned to fruitless lives as baby-making machines. In light of the testimony that I have provided about female intelligence and educational ability, there is no reason to believe that, absent such type of immoral coercive action, females would not have been able to contribute to such fields as well. In fact, whenever females were able to obtain education, they made stunning contributions to a variety of fields. Lise Meitner discovered nuclear fission and explained how it functioned and thus was responsible for the later research that led to the development of the atomic bomb. Marie Curie discovered radiation. Rosalind Franklin used X-Ray Crystallography to discover the structure of DNA, a discovery that singlehandedly advanced the field of biology. Barbara McClintock revolutionized genetics when she discovered transposons. Dorothy Hodgkin discovered the chemical structure of penicillin, an important discovery that drug companies currently employ to create cheap, penicillin-like alternatives. Hypatia was an Ancient Greek astronomer and mathematician who made important contributions to math and philosophy. There are countless examples of females who have contributed to the advancement of fields that we apply in our daily lives; these are not restricted just to males. In fact, stripping females of their ability to participate in such fields and failing to remember their achievements as my opponent does amounts to little more than claiming ownership over the advancements that they made for society. What this demonstrates is that male sacrifice is not the only tool for advancement; female sacrifice has been critical as well, and that both male and female sacrifice are necessary for society to prosper. Feminism recognizes this; my opponent does not. Feminism is not based on entitlement to male achievements, but rather on entitlement to self-ownership and the ability to author one's own destiny.

Sources
http://www.thirdage.com...

http://www.good.is...

https://chronicle.com...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
elysian85

Pro

elysian85 forfeited this round.
royalpaladin

Con

My opponent has forfeited Round 3, so I am just going to finish my rebuttals before presenting a few more arguments.

I have already refuted the notion that academic fields only exist due to male achievement. My opponent next claims that all of these achievements are founded upon the male ability to protect society; i.e. if society did not exist, then neither would these achievements.

The first reason that this is fallacious is that it presumes that females are incapable of protecting themselves and the rest of society. Absent the existence of male protections, my opponent reasons, society would not exist and neither would these inventions. Although females are biologically weaker than males, they are still capable of defending themselves and society. The reason that they have historically not done so is that the patriarchal structures have traditionally banned them from participation in military defense. However, when females do participate, they can make extraordinary contributions to social defense. Joan of Arc was a peasant girl who snatched the English victory in the Hundred Year's War out of Britain's jaws and defended her French homeland. Mai Bhago, a Sikh housewife, shamed cowardly Sikh men into rejoining the war effort against the Mughals; she was such an excellent warrior that she became the personal bodyguard of the Sikh leader, Guru Gobind Singh. Triệu Thị Trinh successfully defended Vietnam from the invading Wu dynasty. In fact, she was so successful at leading military campaigns that she actually carved out a portion of Vietnam as her own and ruled that area until her death. Boudicca was an anti-imperialist Norfolk Queen who razed imperial Roman settlements and struck fear in the enemy's military leaders. The Trưng Sisters, now nationally recognized as Vietnamese heroes, repelled Chinese forces for three years. Fu Hao, a leader of the Shang dynasty, was the most powerful military leader of 1200 B.C.; she successfully expanded her empire and defeated her enemies, the Tu. Ahhotep I drove the Hyskos invaders out of Egypt and successfully paved the way for uniting Upper and Lower Egypt into one nation. Zenobia, a female leader of Syria, defeated the patriarchal Roman Empire so decisively that she was able to completely drive the Romans out of Asia minor. She was so successful at her military campaigns that three other nations surrendered themselves to her and accepted her as their Queen. Tamara of Georgia, a ruler so respected by her people that she was declared the "King of Kings and Queen of Queens", actively commanded her own troops in battle and brought down every neighboring Muslim state while simultaneously annexing Armenia and establishing the Empire of Trebizond.

What the success of these female warriors demonstrates is that not only have females historically contributed to the defense of their homelands as conquerors, rebel leaders, and foot soldiers, but also that the female role in social defense is every bit as possible and necessary as the male role in defense.

He will probably claim that this does not matter. After all, even if females have defended society, and even if males prevent them from participating in defense, males still sacrificed their lives. In reply, I posit that achievement and sacrifice are not true achievements and sacrifices if they are done while forcefully preventing others from doing the same. They do not deserve any special recognition unless they are done when others do not wish to achieve or sacrifice or if all are free to achieve and sacrifice but only some do. In addition, even if you disagree with this, note that at best, this would mandate giving the males who actually sacrificed and defended society some sort of special honor and distinction (which we already do); granting other males the fruits of the sacrifice permits those other males to unfairly steal the rewards of actions they did not commit.

So, what I have consistently proven is that permitting females to participate in "male" life does not violate any rules of biology; females are perfectly capable of advancing intellectual fields just as well as, if not better than, males and females are also perfectly capable of defending their nations just as well as males. His entire claim, then, rests on a notion of biological gender roles that has been refuted.

His final argument is that male self-entitlement results in a variety of harms and female self-entitlement rests in feminism. Comparing the two phenomena is nonsensical; feminism is not attempting to claim male achievements as its own but rather is simply demanding acknowledgment of female achievements and for individuals to be judged based on their merits rather than on their reproductive capabilities.

Since I have discussed what feminism does not entail, I will now discuss what it does entail.

Nothing has inherent value. Rocks, humans, trees, etc. are all entirely meaningless. What confers value on an object is our ability to subjectively impose our preferences on it.

My life also doesn't have inherent value. I give it value when I am free to pursue my own ends and engage in activities that I find worthwhile. But why does this matter? The end for all humans is happiness. Happiness is the proper end to have because it is not a means to any other end.

So, insofar as my ability to be happy stems from my ability to pursue my own ends and thus confer worth upon myself, the most moral thing for me to do would be to pursue my own ends.

Now, we run into a bit of a problem. What if my desire to pursue my own ends conflicts with another person's desire to pursue his own ends? For example, what if I gain happiness by killing others?

From this is it is clear that we must have constraints on actions. In order to maximize happiness for all people, we must ensure that all people are able to pursue their own ends

The best means through which we enable all people to pursue their own ends is through individual, hypothetical contracts that we make to not violate each others' ability to pursue ends . We constrain our interests if others constrain their interests so that we do not violate each others' autonomy. From these contracts, we create the basis of rights like life, liberty, and property. If we did not accept these contracts, there would be no reason for other people to do so either, and thus we could very easily violate autonomy and eliminate the basis for self-worth.

From this we can see that rights entail noninterference.

Feminism uses this liberal theory to draw several important conclusions. First, all individuals, regardless of gender, have the same basic rights. These rights are drawn from the internal nature of each individual rather than the good for society as a whole. Rights are reciprocal, and everyone merits the same treatment from everyone else. Second, gender roles should not be forced on anybody because they violate the individual's capacity to pursue her own ends. Both males and females ought to be the authors of their own lives, since they understand what they value. Third, individuals ought to be judged as individuals based on their merits rather than being categorized into arbitrary groups and judged based on common characteristics. Feminism thus does not seek to emasculate males or to strip them of their rights; rather, they advocate spreading rights and goods fairly among all people. Feminist theories may differ on the implementation of this (some advocate market distribution while others are more egalitarian, for example), but all feminist theories have a basic level of egalitarianism that is based on individual worth and human dignity. As I have pointed out numerous times, my opponent is grouping people together based on shared reproductive characteristics and arguing that they ought to be judged as groups rather than as individuals. Feminism rejects this and notes that since people are individuals should be judged based on their merits as individuals rather than as parts of a large group. In fact, I would posit that the entire nature of the affirmative case, which is based on gender roles, is nothing more than a fallacy of division.

Now, since my opponent forfeited Round 3, please extend all of my rebuttals from Round 2. They were entirely uncontested in this debate.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
elysian85

Pro

After conferring with Con on the issue of personal matters, Pro proposes a tie in this debate.

When voting, please consider that Con has displayed outstanding character and should be awarded points for Conduct.

Thank you to all who commented.
royalpaladin

Con

I didn't want to get a free win from the forfeits, so I propose a tie for this debate. Pro was busy with life, and I can respect that he works hard for a living.
Debate Round No. 4
elysian85

Pro

See above.
royalpaladin

Con

The end :)
Debate Round No. 5
316 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheHitchslap 5 years ago
TheHitchslap
Fair enough. Like I said PM me when your good to go.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
I'm going back to college tonight. I have time to post things right now, but I don't know if I will have time to commit to a debate. So yes, I have time to "preach my nonsense" but not to debate.

I mean, I guess I could do something this weekend, but I already know that I'm going to be occupied on Sunday.
Posted by TheHitchslap 5 years ago
TheHitchslap
Yes it did, but it also went on to say that if you compare height versus height. But the general consensus is men are more intelligent because they are taller. Not individual versus individual. Thus they are the SAME.

DEBATE MEEEE!
And no you don't you have time to run around preeching your nonsense but not enough to back it up?
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Not only is your article dated, but it also explicitly says that men are not inherently more intelligent than women. Taller people are more intelligent than shorter people according to your article.

I don't know. I need to work out my schedule.
Posted by TheHitchslap 5 years ago
TheHitchslap
Answer my PM.
You gonna debate me or what?
Posted by TheHitchslap 5 years ago
TheHitchslap
"More recently, however, especially since the turn of the millennium, there have been an increasing number of studies that cast doubt on this politically correct conclusion. Studies with large representative national samples from Spain, Denmark, and the United States, as well as meta-analyses of a large number of published studies throughout the world, all conclude that men on average are slightly but significantly more intelligent than women, by about 3-5 IQ points. So this has now become the new (albeit tentative) consensus in intelligence research.

See All Stories In

Masculine Minds
Find a Therapist
Search for a mental health professional near you.

Find Local:
Acupuncturists
Chiropractors
Massage Therapists
Dentists
and more!

However, these studies do not answer the ultimate evolutionary question of why men should be more intelligent than women. General intelligence likely evolved as a domain-specific psychological mechanism to deal with evolutionary novelty. However, unlike populations in different geographic parts of the world, men and women within a population have always faced the same level of evolutionary novelty throughout evolutionary history, because they have always migrated together. If general intelligence is a function of the evolutionary novelty of the environment, why then are men on average slightly more intelligent than women?

My LSE colleague, Diane J. Reyniers, and I offer one possible explanation in our article, forthcoming in the American Journal of Psychology. Psychometricians have known since the end of the 19th century that height is positively correlated with intelligence: Taller people on average are more intelligent than shorter people. And men in every human population are taller than women. So one possibility is that men are more intelligent than women, not because they are men, but because they are taller."

Shut down Royal, you didn't read the whole article. Please play again.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Shut down again. Your own study, which is dated, says women are more intelligent.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
LOL, HitchSlap, guess what? Your own article says this:

Our analysis of a large representative American sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health shows that this is indeed the case. In fact, once we control for height, women are slightly but significantly more intelligent than men. Further controlling for health, physical attractiveness, age, race, education, and earnings does not alter this conclusion. Height has exactly the same effect on intelligence for men and women: Each inch in height increases the IQ by about .4 point. The partial effect of height on intelligence is more than three times as strong as the partial effect of sex.
Posted by TheHitchslap 5 years ago
TheHitchslap
"Men ARE less intelligent, on average. The difference is only slight. "
WRONG!
-http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
@elysian

I do what I can.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
elysian85royalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Royal is the master of the tie
Vote Placed by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
elysian85royalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Evolution played a dirty trick on women.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
elysian85royalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: A tie? A TIE!?!?!? WHAT IS THIS MADNESS!?!?!?!?