In this modern age, feminism is no longer needed. There is inequality among both genders. Women are just as privileged as men, and feminism is becoming a dangerous juggernaut in the media.
I'm gonna break it (his argument) down, with logic .CONTENTION ONE: NO SOURCES
My round one argument is: "Pro provided no sources" . However, "you need evidence to win" . Thus, Pro cannot win.CONTENTION TWO: INEQUALITY IS REAL
Pro: There is inequality among both genders. Women are just as privileged as men
Just because both genders aren't treated fully fairly does not mean the levels of inequality are the same for both genders. For example, women face a significant pay gap.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics states that females in the U.S. on average currently earn 81.2% of male earnings . The Joint Economic Committee states that the gender pay gap persists across all occupations, such as physicians and surgeons (64.4%), salespersons (70.6%), truck drivers (76.4%), attorneys (80.5%), and management personnel . A recent Government Accountability Office study, accounting for a wide variety of observable differences between male and female management personnel, found that female management personnel on average earn 81% of male earnings . The Joint Economic Committee states that the gender pay gap persists across all educational levels . The gender pay gap cannot be attributed solely to familial responsibilities, because a recent Government Accountability report found that management personnel who are mothers earn 79% of management personnel who are fathers . (Furthermore, even if the gender pay gap can be attributed in part to familial responsibilities, the fact that females currently perform 66% of household tasks  is merely another example of male privilege.) Part-time jobs exacerbate the problem, because female part-time workers earn only 58% of male part- time workers . The gender pay gap results in part due to the lower average wages of professions that females are employed in ; however, (a) the pay gap persists accross occupations, as mentioned, and (b) the skewed representation of females in certain professions results from institutional bias against females in those professions . At all levels, a promotion bias of 2:1 exists for males . Females advance slowly in male-dominated fields , while males advance quickly in female-dominated fields . Females that more aggressively pursue better pay or career advancement are discriminated against , which helps prevent changes to this status quo.
Thus, women are NOT just as privileged as men.
CONTENTION THREE: "MEDIA JUGGERNAUT"
Pro: [F]eminism is becoming a dangerous juggernaut in the media.
Pro has to prove the following things:
1: Feminism wasn't a juggernaut in the media in the past (or else "no longer" no longer applies)
2: Feminism is a juggernaut in the media
3: Feminism being a juggernaut in the media is a bad thing
4: Sample text
5: "Juggernauts" in the media can exist
6: Feminism is actually a unified group that uses its power to silence other views within the media, rather than a set of people who share an ideology, comparable to the near-universal support of near-universal free speech in the media
7: Juggernaut is a definable term, and not some "scary" term
8: The feminist juggernaut poses "dangerous" threats to people; merely saying words isn't dangerous, so Pro has to show the feminist juggernaut physically threatens people
(Break It Down, by Logic)
 bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2011.pdf (p. 52)
 jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9118a9ef-0771-4777-9c1f-8232fe70a45c (p. 9-11)
 gender-competence.eu/files/IntConf/5.pdf (p. 6-7, 11) iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination
1. I apologize for not including sources; this is my first debate on this website and I thought that I was supposed to be making a "blanket opening statement" of sorts, if you will.
2. The wage gap is completely false. The original study used to generate the wage gap is extremely misleading; the wage gap all but vanishes when you factor in hours worked, rank, etc. . There is a difference between "earn" and "pay". Men earn more than women, but they are not paid more than women. According to the CONSAD report concerning disparagement of women in the work place, women are less likely to seek higher paying jobs, apply for promotions, work as many hours, and even request raises . Many modern day feminists like to attribute this to the so called "patriarchy"; however, no such thing exists. Women are more likely to victimize themselves than men , which leads to the internal feeling of oppression. As for the "promotion bias", just because men are more likely to be promoted, does not mean that there is a bias among employers; it is more likely that the men in question were simply more ambitious or prepared for the next rank up .
3. My use of the word "juggernaut" was an implication of the cyber-lynch mob surrounding feminism in the media; if you critique it publicly, you will be harassed.
1: Feminism was not a juggernaut in the media in the past because it was confined to television and public events - with the rise of social media, feminism has been able to spread rapidly across America. The term "media" is not the same today as it was in the past  
2: Feminism is a juggernaut in the media. It is spreading lies so efficiently, that even the POTUS has quoted the false wage gap statistic . Critiquing feminism will lead to harassment and possibly violence - as soon as feminism garners an outspoken opponent, they are berated and shunned.  
3: Feminism being a juggernaut in the media is bad, because it negates any ability to critique it, which in turn is an imposition on censoring freedom of speech.
5: As I stated previously, feminism cannot be critiqued without repercussion. Thus, my justification for using the word "juggernaut".   
6: Feminism is not a unified group at all; rather it is made up of many subgroups who cannot seem to agree with one another on what constitutes "feminism". There are the man-haters , the whiners , and the intersectional feminists . These groups (any many others) all claim to be the "true" feminists. That is a major no true Scotsman fallacy.
7: See 3 & 5
8: The feminists are imposing upon freedom of speech  , and physically assaulting people.  
 SCUM Manifesto (Valerie Solanas, 1967), p. 1
CONTENTION ONE: NO SOURCES
It's fine, I'm just an impolite human anus who doesn't care about rules.
CONTENTION TWO: INEQUALITY
Pro has not addressed any of the 4 studies I cited in Round 1; judges must now accept them as true.
The CONSAD study:
A: CONSAD accepts that a wage gap exists:
"There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent."
Thus, even adjusting for Pro's variables, women still earn 4.8-7.1% less then men for comparable jobs. Using Pro's sources, Con has fulfilled their burden; as long as there is *any* non-inherent inequality that women face, feminism still has purpose in America. Vote Con.
B: Let's look at how CONSAD "explains" 70% of the wage gap.
First: "A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work."
Pro has the burden to demonstrate that this difference is wholly inherent in being male/female, and not a product of how women are raised and treated in society. If this is a product of society, then feminism has a role in reforming society to treat and raise men and women equally. Also, look to  -- even in part-time jobs, women earn 58% of men.
Second: "A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of children in the home."
Again, Pro must prove this is inherent, not societal.
Third: "Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” workplace policies more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly, the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation."
Again, Pro must prove this is inherent, not societal. Further, look to , which proves that mothers with child earn 79% of fathers with child, showing unequal burdens in the home and in work .
And that's all the variables included:
"[I]ncluding some additional variables ... is not feasible ... with available data bases."
Thus, the CONSAD study provides Pro basically no reasons to win.
Furthermore, the CONSAD study states:
"Blau and DeVaro found that, all other things being equal, the promotion rates of men exceed the promotion rates of women by 2.2 to 3.1 percentage points. However, there was no discernible difference in the rate of growth of salaries between the genders."
This supports my point that women are unfairly treated in promotion.
In response, Pro states: "[W]omen are less likely to seek higher paying jobs, apply for promotions, work as many hours, and even request raises. .... As for the "promotion bias", just because men are more likely to be promoted, does not mean that there is a bias among employers; it is more likely that the men in question were simply more ambitious or prepared for the next rank up."
Let me quote myself:
"Females that more aggressively pursue better pay or career advancement are discriminated against ."
Women *cannot* pursue promotion, or they get *less* promotion. Subservience is key!
Furthermore, women who see female leaders are more likely to succeed , which helps correct promotion bias. Feminism provides this since it promotes women as leaders.
Pro: "Many modern day feminists like to attribute this to the so called "patriarchy"; however, no such thing exists. Women are more likely to victimize themselves than men, which leads to the internal feeling of oppression."
Yep, not gonna respond to this. It doesn't matter what women feel, because I don't care and I have never used women's feelings to show that women are discriminated against. Unless Pro can link feelings of oppression to something useful, it's null.
SUBPOINT A: LYNCH
Pro describes feminism in the media as a "cyber-lynch mob" that "harasses" people, without citing evidence.
On the other hand, I'll support the idea of a "cyber-lynch mob" called "Gamergate" that opposes feminism. To enforce this viewpoint, Gamergaters have harassed hundreds of persons, doxxed (revealed personal information, such as address and bank records of) dozens of men and women and driven more out of journalism and gaming. And in terms of being an actual lynch mob, Gamergate comes far closer. One of Gamergate's favorite tactics is SWATting -- calling the police and telling them that there's a hostage at the address of one of Gamergate's targets. Police are obligated to send in a SWAT team, which often ends in injury or potentially death. Thus, Gamergate *actually* tries to hurt people .
Feminism in the media just verbally harasses people for not being feminist, kind of like how capitalists disagree with communists.
SUBPOINT B: CHECKLIST
1: Yep, that's fine.
2: Pro states: [Feminism] is spreading lies so efficiently, that even the POTUS has quoted the false wage gap statistic.
Right. Feminism deceived the POTUS. It's not like he just didn't check his sources or anything -- no, it's an evil feminist conspiracy to spread LIES.
Pro states: Critiquing feminism will lead to harassment and possibly violence - as soon as feminism garners an outspoken opponent, they are berated and shunned.
Both of Pro's "sources" come from YouTuber The Amazing Atheist. I'm just gonna drop a link here ; The Amazing Atheist has shown overt and insensitive misogyny and joked about rape in the past, making his claims of getting *unjustly* shunned pretty forking weak.
3: Pro states that it's impossible to criticize feminism in the media and this destroys freedom of speech. Right. There's a political party called the Republican Party, which opposes equal pay acts, seeks to reduce access to reproduction-related objects, and generally is anti-feminist. But yet, somehow, unless a Republican drops a "rape is God's will" line, they never get publicly castigated. It's almost like Pro's talking through his hat.
4: Pro has COMPLETELY DROPPED POINT FOUR: "Sample text". This is a crucial loss for Pro. My argument of "Sample text" COMPLETELY TURNS HIS CASE. "Sample text" is proof that not only is feminism necessary in the United States, but the entire galaxy. A loss of this magnitude sinks the ship of Pro's case. Wait, can you hear that? What's that sound? *blub blub blub* IT'S PRO, DROWNING IN DEFEAT!
5: Juggernauts can be criticized, from a safe distance. Like what if you had a dragon, but the dragon was stuck in a pit, and you told it yo mama jokes. WHAT THEN?!
6: Let me just quote Pro on this: "Feminism is not a unified group at all". A juggernaut, by definition, cannot be divided in on itself and not unified. Thus, feminism cannot be a media juggernaut. That's like saying that whites in America are a media juggernaut. Yeah, they have almost all the media power, but they aren't a monolithic, singular entity.
7: Maybe I'm blind and can't see
8: Pro proves that physical feminists might get slightly violent when a forking "Meninist" protest goes down. However, Pro has to prove that feminists in the media are actually causing this violence.
Pro has no reasons to affirm, having failed to show that women are equal to or greater than men in current society. Con has multiple reasons. Vote Con.
Why'd DDO filter all my forking profanities?!
My CONRAD study made addressing your first 4 sources obsolete. The judges do not have to accept them as true. I'm new to this site, but I've never seen any sort of a debate where one of the debaters tells the judges what they have to do. You also made your opening statement a rebuttal, which was quite unfair.
I do not have the burden of proving that there are biological differences that result in men working more full time jobs than women, this burden of proof relies on "Con". As for your second point, it seems like you are asking me to prove that having a child is a biological action - I'll let that question answer itself. Third, the CONRAD study answers the question of why mothers work less while they have a child, as does my previous source .
The CONRAD study does not support Con's point that women are "unfairly treated in promotion"; you cannot prove unfair promotion bias unless you examine the resumes of every applicant.
Con failed to investigate my source for my assertion that women are biologically disposed to not seek higher paying jobs.
SUBPOINT A: Gamergate can be summed up in one video . If Con had taken the time to view my videos, they would have seen the blatant examples of violence committed by feminists. Also, Con is using "rationalwiki" as a source; using rationalwiki as a source is akin to using conservapedia.
2. Strawman. I never said that there was a feminist conspiracy. As for The Amazing Atheist's rape jokes, they are just that. Jokes.
3. I am not an advocate for the Republican party.
4. How does "sample text" mean anything? Am I being trolled right now..........?
5. New source 
6. Critiquing the word "feminism" is impossible, because even though they don't agree with each other, the majority respond to criticism in the same way.
7. I'm quite sorry
8. Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if it had been two feminists protesting, and a man slapped one of them? It is a total double standard. That video highlights the hypocrisy of feminism.
Am I being trolled? How does "sample text" prove anything? I'm very confused right now. Also, I'd like to repeat that I didn't know I was supposed to open with a full on argument, and someone in the comments even reprimanded Con for doing so.
Pro: "My CONRAD study made addressing your first 4 sources obsolete."
Well, then I guess didn't even need to respond to CONRAD -- because my studies all offered evidence against Pro's conclusion.
Pro: "The judges do not have to accept them as true. I'm new to this site, but I've never seen any sort of a debate where one of the debaters tells the judges what they have to do."
This is standard debate practice in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and Public Forum Debate. When one side fails to respond to ("drops") one of the other side's arguments, that argument becomes "true".
Pro: "I do not have the burden of proving that there are biological differences that result in men working more full time jobs than women, this burden of proof relies on "Con".
Er, Pro has the burden to prove that men are equally privileged to women. Not Con. The fact is, if society is messed up, then feminism is useful. The only way Pro can get around this is some inherent difference between males and females -- such as genetics. Since Pro has not done so, you must vote Neg.
Pro: "As for your second point, it seems like you are asking me to prove that having a child is a biological action - I'll let that question answer itself."
Pro doesn't seem to get it. Child birth is genetic, which I accepted and accept. But this part of CONRAD's study also included "child care and elder care", neither of which is genetic. A man can care just as well for kids as a woman. The only reason women do more child care and elder care is societal inequality, which feminism seeks to redress.
I mean, come on, isn't this one of the big MRA talking points
Pro: "Third, the CONRAD study answers the question of why mothers work less while they have a child, as does my previous source."
Pro asserts this, without showing us where. I have shown that women are unfairly treated compared to men when they have a kid: Even excluding for pregnancy, mothers get only 79% of what fathers get . This is societal injustice, and must be corrected for; thus, feminism is relevant.
Pro: "The CONRAD study does not support Con's point that women are "unfairly treated in promotion"; you cannot prove unfair promotion bias unless you examine the resumes of every applicant."
Right. Which is why, even though women attain equal or slightly higher levels of education, men get promoted 3 *times* as often. I guess men are just *inherently* 3 times better at, well, everything.
Pro: "Con failed to investigate my source for my assertion that women are biologically disposed to not seek higher paying jobs."
Pro's "source" was to assert that women turn themselves into victims of a nonexistent patriarchy.
Pro also failed to investigate my evidence that pointed out that there's nothing women can do to get ahead. I quote myself: "Females that more aggressively pursue better pay or career advancement are discriminated against ."
Pro: "Gamergate can be summed up in one video."
Pro: "If Con had taken the time to view my videos, they would have seen the blatant examples of violence committed by feminists."
You mean the videos of total length 45:00? This is why videos are a bad source -- they waste people's time. By the way, everyone, just watch this video  and you'll SEE that feminism is true! You have to watch the whole thing though, it's only 10 hours or so
Pro: "Also, Con is using "rationalwiki" as a source; using rationalwiki as a source is akin to using conservapedia."
Con provides no evidence that RationalWiki is a bad source, merely asserting that it is comparable to another bad source, Conservapedia. RationalWiki and Conservapedia have pretty forking different viewpoints: Conservapedia bans literally everyone they disagree with; RationalWiki bans those who spam. RationalWiki has been cited directly over 50 times in published works ; Conservapedia has been cited only as an example of a "Conservative" Wikipedia, almost never as a useful source of knowledge.
Furthermore, my opponent might have a point if the RationalWiki article I've cited here wasn't a ridiculously well-cited piece, using over 360 different sources . Pretty much no statement in that article isn't backed up by, y'know, reality.
1. k at your k
2. Pro: "Strawman. I never said that there was a feminist conspiracy."
Just a lie dissemination network, right?
Pro: "As for The Amazing Atheist's rape jokes, they are just that. Jokes."
When a joke degrades sexual assault for the purposes of weak humor, I think we can safely hate on the jokemaker.
3. Pro: "I am not an advocate for the Republican party."
And nor did I say so! My point is that the Republican party does criticize feminism, without media censorship.
4. MY OPPONENT CONTINUES TO IGNORE THE CRUCIAL ARGUMENT OF SAMPLE TEXT . VOTE CON ALL THE WAY .
5. Prefer my Gamergate source over his . It's forking ridiculously well-cited and I've summarized it here for those who can't bother to read it. His is just some annoyingly long video, which he doesn't actually summarize in-round.
6. Pro: "Critiquing the word "feminism" is impossible, because even though they don't agree with each other, the majority respond to criticism in the same way."
7. Pro: "I'm quite sorry"
A is the interp: Debaters must not be exclusionary.
B is the violation: Pro can't undo the exclusionary harms of anti-blindism.
C is the standards: Exclusionary rhetoric shuts out debaters from debate, which destroys it as an educational activity and removes its fairness.
D is the voters: Gotta be fair & educational mang
8. Pro: "Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if it had been two feminists protesting, and a man slapped one of them? It is a total double standard. That video highlights the hypocrisy of feminism."
OH NOES SOME FEMINISTS ARE HYPOCRITES
I guess that means feminism is hypocritical
Oh. Wait. That's not how broad political movements work .
Pro: "Am I being trolled?"
Trolls don't exist. Only lulz.
Pro: "You also made your opening statement a rebuttal, which was quite unfair. .... Also, I'd like to repeat that I didn't know I was supposed to open with a full on argument, and someone in the comments even reprimanded Con for doing so."
Next time, say "first round acceptance". The rules don't exist unless you state 'em in your 1st round. Them's the rules about rules.
Conduct: Nobody's at fault here. All fun and games.
Grammar: i hav liek 1000% bettar grammer then h3 duz, vot mi yp plz
Arguments: Solid Con vote. A gender gap has been proven to exist, and it's the only major issue in this debate. Even Pro's sources agree with Con about this. The only other issue is the "feminist juggernaut", which was such a messy debate that I think nobody wins there. Thus, the only issue you can vote on is a gender pay gap, which is clear Con ground.
Sources: Solid Con vote. Con has provided numerous published studies to back up Con's points; Pro has tended towards YouTube videos and blogposts. Furthermore, Con has 14 sources, compared to Pro's 13, of which many were effectively different videos of the same thing.
THE ONE THING YOU NEED TO READ BEFORE VOTING
A gender pay gap exists. CONRAD agrees; the Bureau of Labor Statistics agrees; the Joint Economic Committee agrees; the Government Accountability Office agrees. Pro has never proven that the gender pay gap is 0% -- instead, Pro has merely proven that the gender pay gap might be more like 5%. As long as the gender pay gap isn't 0%, feminism is relevant.