Feminism is necessary
Debate Rounds (5)
time, since it wasn't defined in the first or second round by my
opponent, I would like to offer a definition of the word "necessary".
Necessary: being essential, indispensable, or requisite 
This is a common definition, so I presume Pro will have no problem with it.
Now for a little history of feminism:
"Charles Fourier, a Utopian Socialist and French philosopher, is credited with having coined the word "f"minisme" in 1837. The words "f"minisme" ("feminisme") and "f"minist" ("feminist") first appeared in France and the Netherlands in 1872, Great Britain in the 1890s, and the United States in 1910, and the Oxford English Dictionary lists 1852 as the year of the first appearance of "feminist" and 1895 for "feminism"." 
So, with this in mind, I think I can address all of my opponent's arguments with one general rebuttal: Since there was once a time when feminism didn't exist, it's clearly not necessary. It's not essential for our survival, nor is it indispensable, or a requisite. Feminism may or may not be a good thing to have, but it's NOT necessary. We have lived without it in the past, and could do so in the future.
Remember, we're NOT debating if we SHOULD practice feminism. The debate resolution is about whether it's necessary.
Treating women as equals is a nice thing to do, but it's not NECESSARY.
I turn it back over to Pro.
My opponent may not be fine with my source, but I accept hers. I accept it because it proves MY point. If feminism began in the 1400s, as my opponent says, then feminism is not necessary, because we used to live without it.
Necessary vs. Should
AGAIN, we're not debating if we should have feminism, we're debating if feminism is necessary. If my opponent wanted to debate if it should be on implemented, she should have crafted a different resolution.
Definition of "necessary"
My opponent did not argue with the definition of "necessary", so I can only presume she agrees with it. With this in mind, let's go over it again so I can build a foundation for my rebuttal:
necessary: being essential, indispensable, or requisite
My opponent gave me a litany of issues, and asked me if I thought any of them were necessary. Well, to answer her question, we need to ask if they're "essential, indispensable, or requisite"
13th amendment? No. The Declaration? Nope. Abortion ban? Negative. Empowerment, respect, identity? Not at all. Don't get me wrong, I support all of those things, but they're not necessary. We COULD live in a world without freedom, respect, and identity. Therefore, feminism is NOT necessary.
There is a problem with Pro's definition of "requisite"... it defines
"requisite" as a noun, while the word "necessary" is used as an
adjective in the debate resolution. We know this because when one
diagrams the sentence "Feminism is necessary", the word "necessary"
describes "feminism" and is therefore an adjective. With this in
mind, Pro's definition of a noun isn't interchangeable with the
adjective "necessary". In other words, Pro's argument concerning the
definition of "necessary" should be disregarded.
Pro has engaged in a logical fallacy known as "Moving the Goalposts".
I doubt if she did it on purpose, but regardless of her motivation, her
argument should be disregarded nonetheless. Let me explain:
Moving the goalposts: "Moving the goalposts, similar to "shifting
sands" and also known as raising the bar, is an informal fallacy in
which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed
and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an
attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to
exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the end result is changed, too." 
Basically, once I showed feminism is NOT necessary, Pro tried to change the resolution from Feminism is Necessary to "Feminism is Necessary for the achievement of a specific end". That's unfair. If Pro wanted to debate that, she should have said so before I accepted the debate. It's too late to change the debate now, so I ask the voters to ignore her attempt to do so.
Essential: "absolutely necessary; extremely important."
Indispensable: "absolutely necessary."
Requisite: "made necessary by particular circumstances or regulations; a thing that is necessary for the achievement of a specified end."
The definition you provided simply used synonyms for the word necessary. I elaborated on the definition as using synonyms does not provide a clear definition of the word. As this has become a problem, I would elaborate on the definition again, using a much clearer definition: "required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential." I believe in both of these cases, the definition has supported my case that feminism is indeed necessary.
I would like to conclude with my argument that feminism is indeed necessary for a fully functional, fair society. It is needed for humans to live cohesively. Feminism provides people with a sense of self-worth and identity, something that is required for a fully functional human being.
I would like to remind you again that the length of something's existence does not determine its worth. I would also like to state the fact that as most of my opponent's argument has consisted of semantics, it is not valid considering the definitions we provided.
I feel this conversation has fallen to semantics, therefore not allowing for a real debate on this issue. I would be happy to debate this topic with you again, as I am interested in what you have to say. I do not feel this debate accurately represents what either of us has to say.
I found the definitions of all three words simply through Google. Thank you and good luck! :)
Last round I very directly said that my opponent's definition of "requisite" should be disregarded. I said this because she was using the definition of a noun, and the word "necessary" is used as an adjective in the debate resolution "Feminism is necessary". Because of this, I said, Pro's definition/argument should be disregarded. So, with that in mind, what was my opponent's response???? NOTHING. She didn't even ATTEMPT to discredit my argument. By being silent, I can only presume she did so because she was not able to refute my argument. As captain of the debate team, it seems rather unlikely that she just forgot to respond. After all, with only 2,000 characters per round, it's not a very long debate. I encourage the voters to see her drop for what it is, an admission of guilt.
What We're Debating
Again, my opponent seems to be trying to change the debate as we go along. She brings up many reasons why we should like feminism, but when reading them, ask yourself "Is this what they were supposed to be debating?" I would argue the answer is no. For example...
Do we have to have a "fully functional, fair society"? No.
Do we have to "live cohesively"? No.
Do people have to have "a sense of self-worth and identity"? No.
Certainly all those things are nice, but we don't have to have them, therefore, feminism is NOT necessary.
Straw Man Argument
My opponent has engaged in another logical fallacy. This one is known as a straw man argument. This is done when someone misrepresents her opponent's arguments.  I never said that the age of something determined it's worth. What I said was that we can tell something is NOT necessary if we can live without it. Even if that something is helpful, if we can go on without it, it's NOT necessary. That's exactly what we see with feminism. Feminism may or not be beneficial, but that's NOT what we're debating. We're debating if it's necessary, and since we could (and have) lived life without it... It's not necessary.
No Semantics Here
I used generally accepted definitions from a reliable dictionary.
I think the choice is clear. I showed that feminism is NOT necessary. After I did that, Pro tried to change what we were debating in order to salvage her chances of winning. I ask the voters to recognize her attempt, and to vote for Con accordingly.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: This was a lot less exciting than I was hoping. Like Con said, Necessary basically means to not be able to live without, and Pro didn't argue against this definition. So the resolution is basically "we cannot live without feminism." Unfortunately for Pro, although she brought up some fairly good points, as Con pointed out, nothing she said makes feminism necessary. It would be a plus to have everyone treated equally, it is morally right to treat women mostly the same way you treat men, but it is not necessary. Con solidifies this point by showing that feminism didn't exist at a time, and the human race was able to survive without it, meaning it isn't necessary. I don't like this, but Con shows that feminism is indeed not necessary by stating that the human race was able to survive without it. But because I know (and I'm sure everyone else knows) this wasn't really the resolution Pro was going for, I'm awarding Pro a conduct point because semantics kind of came into play.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.