Upon this basis is it not logical that men would have rights to govern society, the workplace, and the home. In modeling, women make 80% more than men. Is this fair, why do men not rise up in anger at society for paying women more than men in the fashion industry? Why not, because men have dealt with ten times worse the hardship through human history to even consider unequal pay something to fight over. In the United States, this countries social structure was developed specifically to cater to the individualist model. The United States was built on free market economics (not slavery). The country was built on a single man"s motivation to provide for his family and the betterment of society. Government did not build this country; the corporations did not build this country. Your great grandfather and his fathers before him built this country, not the effeminate, not homosexuals. Men built this country, men built every country. We did not do this for women cowering in fear to over-through the laws which make us free. "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." It does not profess government power; we are free men, absolute, and sovereign beings. We men did not go into battle, kill, and die for you women to sell everything we have fought to establish law before the power structures of the world. It was never about keeping women from voting. Only men were to vote to protect the American culture of individualism and protect the liberties we have fought and bled to preserve for our children. Men were, and very much still are the head of the household, and therefore it was one vote per house hold. It's not about oppression, it was never about oppression. Why would men oppress that which he loves more than anything before God? What is the meaning of life if not to transcend our earthy world? What is the point if not to become more intelligent? Yes, it is about infrastructure, but also to expand in conciseness and become that which we once were before antiquity. We were created in the image of God, we are pure energy beings. We are celestial and divine creations. We are not merely flesh and bone, we are not animals.
So I ask, do homosexual rights and women's rights create anything, build anything, or contribute anything to the betterment of society. Do these issues inspire people to colonize space, do they motivate people to build a business or provide a service to society, and do you think these issues should continue to be continuously shoved down the throat of men and women across the world daily? Do you really want to continue arguing for these cases or instead motivate your boys to become astronauts or motivate them to end all disease or discover the next generation propulsion systems or clean perpetual energy systems? Can we stop focusing on endless debates and get back to discussing the development of significant technologies. We do not need any more telephones; we don't need smart televisions, or enhanced entertainment or video games. Let"s return to what's important and what will lead mankind beyond what we ever thought possible.
I thank Pro for instigating the debate & I accept the challenge.
- The burden of proof is on Pro.
Best of Luck.
I thank Pro for submitting his 2nd round.
- I shall remind the voters that the BOP is on Pro.
- Besides the fact that Pro’s whole case is a bare assertion fallacy, for which he provides no evidence whatsoever, it is also off topic. There is not a single word denoting gender neutrality (nor any related ideas) in Pro’s entire case. There is literally nothing to argue against here.
- Therefore, I shall await Pro’s arguments for Gender Neutrality so that I can refute them.
hegiliansdialect forfeited this round.
2. Pro’s entire case is bare assertions, as he provided no evidence whatsoever for what he presented.
3. Pro’s case is largely unrelated to his resolution, as there is not one single contention that argues for Gender Neutrality! If there are any, it’s distinctly for the opposite of the resolution: “Without distinction between genders society as we know it will not survive, cannot survive.”
4. Pro thus failed to carry his BOP.
5. Pro also forfeited his 3rd round, warranting him a penalty in Conduct.
|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:||0||2|