The Instigator
JacobGibbsDofE
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Tommy.leadbetter
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

In the UK, men are discriminated against more than women.

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 2 votes the winner is...
JacobGibbsDofE
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 891 times Debate No: 60648
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

JacobGibbsDofE

Pro




Resolution: In the UK, men are discriminated against more than women.

Redoing this debate because the last guy didn't take it seriously.

Structure
Con will start with his opening in round 1, I will state my opening argument in round 2, and the rounds after that will be used for arguments and rebuttals until Con's round 4, where he'll simply say "End of debate".

Rules
1. No trolling
2. No personal insults
3. Con cannot write or imply an argument in the fourth round.
4. [All Standard DDO Terms of Service apply]
5. Breaking any of the rules will result in a 7-point forfeit.

Thank you.
Tommy.leadbetter

Con

Opening arguments.

Although as far as I know there are no laws that specifically discriminate women, women are discriminated in the beliefs of the culture. I mean, women are seen as less than men in our cultural mentality. Women are objectified. Women, thusly, feel substandard, lesser and inferior. I argue that women are discriminated by our cultural mind dictators, the media, and the message to women is: you are not good enough just the way you are, you must be better looking or your not worth it. All that matters is the way you look. There is nothing else about you that matters, you are purely eye-candy for men. Shut-up and look sexy, that's all your worth.

This is not purely the media that creates this, it is a common consequence of large societies. People are always discriminated against: blacks, Jews, immigrants, gays, women. Women have been percieved as inferior to men almost without exception since agriculture. But. The media still encourages this view incessantly, having a huge effect on the women living with this view of themselves. I urge you to watch 'Killing us softly' on YouTube. Perhaps open your mind to the less obvious discrimination that women are subject to. For although it is massive if your eyes are open to it, it it not noticed by most people because they cannot see the wood for the trees. I mean they just don't even think about it, they just live without contemplating their attitudes.

I argue women are discriminated massively by the media, but also somewhat subtlety. But thus is about whether men are discriminated more, I look forward to my opponents viewpoint so I can have something to argue with.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
JacobGibbsDofE

Pro

My Arguments

#1: The right to financial abortion

Men do not have the right to a financial abortion in cases where they are unable to/don't want to provide for their child [1], whereas if a woman is unable to/doesn't want to provide for a child, she can have an abortion [2].

#2: The Cancer funding gap

Prostate cancer gets under half the amount of funding that breast cancer gets [3], as pointed out by Prostate Cancer UK. Although it is one of the more treatable types of cancer, particularly if diagnosed early, one man dies every hour from it, says Prostate Cancer UK.

#3: The Domestic violence shelter gap

Despite the fact that 40% of domestic violence victims are men [4], and that when you factor in suicides, more men die as a result of it [5], there is approximately only one domestic violence shelter for men for every 180 there is for women [6].

#4: Women are favoured by the criminal justice system

Women are favoured by the criminal justice system, as is evident from one case published in KentOnline on the first of this month, where a 44 year-old woman escaped free from a jail after sexually assaulting a 14 year-old [7]. Switch the genders around and this never would've happened.

#5: The homelessness gap

It is obvious that men are discriminated against more than women when you consider the fact that ~90% [8] of homeless people are male, whilst only 10% are female.

#6: The massive differences in suicide rates by Gender

Men commit suicide 3.5x as often as women do [9]. The privileged would not commit suicide more often than the oppressed. Following those facts, it becomes stupid to believe that there's even a chance that men are less discriminated against than women.

I'll leave it there for now.

Thank you.

Sources
[1] Appel, Jacob M. “Women’s Rights, Men’s Bodies,” New York Times, December 2, 2005
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[4] www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
[5] Davis, Richard. Published by the "Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace issues". 2009. http://www.emeraldinsight.com...
[6] http://j4mb.wordpress.com...
[7] http://www.kentonline.co.uk...
[8] http://www.crisis.org.uk...
[9] http://j4mb.wordpress.com...

Tommy.leadbetter

Con

I would firstly like to say that my opponent bases half of his arguments on statistics. It's difficult to draw conclusions based on statistics, and they don't always reflect exactly what they seem to reflect when looked at with a particular viewpoint. For instance; he says that 90% of homeless people are male, and he suggests that this is evidence of discrimination against males, but he does not consider other factors that may be responsible for the disparity between male and females being homeless. Factors that could make males more likely to be homeless, lie in the biological differences between men and women, males are more impulsive, aggressive and careless. They are more likely to live the lifestyles and behave in the ways that result in homelessness and poverty.

Your first argument: financial abortion. I bealieve Pregnancy is different for women than for men, women should have different rights to men in the matter. Men provide nothing but DNA information that is endlessly producible: women provide the egg which she only has a set number of, and which are far more important than sperm in the foetus' early development. Then, following the conception, women must bare a burden so heavy, that most men will never endure anything like it. Women can only have a certain amount of babies also, because it drains their bodies to such an extent. My opponent is saying that he thinks a man should be able to force his partner to have an abortion if they don't want it. This is not right to me. I cannot imagine what my partner would have done, when she got pregnant, if I forced an abortion on her. Do you honestly think this is okay? So my opponents first argument doesn't work, because there is only one sex who could be allowed to decide on pregnancy, and so I guess you could say nature has discriminated against men, but not society. Society has to deal with the situation nature has given us.

Your second argument is that prostate cancer gets half the funding breast cancer gets. Well this runs true throughout these issues. Only tonight, my wife showed me a chart showing the amounts of funding different conditions get, in comparison to there mortality rate. I cannot for the life of me find this chart, but the differences where huge. One thing I do remember is that heart disease was the biggest killer, and got almost the lowest amount of funding. So my point is, that my opponents second argument doesn't necessarily demonstrate discrimination. Instead, it demonstrates inconsistency in the medical industry.

My opponents third argument is that there is only one male shelter for every 180 women's shelters for domestic abuse, when men make up 40% of those abused. I don't think this is because we discriminate against men, men have the same laws subject to them as to women in terms of violence. I think this is because this research you speak of was only made public a few years ago. People have simply been ignorant to the extent of male domestic abuse, the necessary care will be provided in time.

Your fourth argument is that women are favoured by the criminal justice system. The only evidence you give is an example of a particular women getting away with rape. This does not prove your case. If women are apparently favoured by the criminal justice system, then I believe this is because the court system works off subjective analysis of the criminals. I mean, a jury has to judge the character of a person and the police have to suspect a person. In short: if you look like a criminal, your more likely to get pulled or to be judged in a negative way. Men look more like criminals, again that's nature making men the more aggressive, dominant one, and thus men are made in people's minds to be more 'criminal' in their nature than females. So because of this (true) stereotype, men are more likely to be judged as guilty or to be suspected in the first place. There is no active discrimination going on there.

Homeless gap I explained in the first paragraph. Due to their very biology, men are more likely to become homeless. Also, they maybe less likely to be helped out of homelessness than women for numerous reasons that are not discriminatory laws and decisions.

Suicide argument: again it's statistics. Men are more likely to live lives that cause them to commit suicide. Because they are impulsive, they are more likely to do things they regret (rape, murder). Resulting in loosing family and friends and feelings of shame. Men are not more likely to commit suicide-men are more likely to behave in ways that increase the possibility of suicide. This statistic proves nothing. Women may be so used to oppression that they can just deal with their problems better than men, and so don't commit suicide. I mean, suicide rates are higher in the UK than in parts of the world considered to be in poverty. Suicide rates do not prove that men are discriminated more than women. You must try and give reason for it, and consider other factors that might be responsible for the difference between men and women.
Debate Round No. 2
JacobGibbsDofE

Pro

Rebuttal of Con's round 1

Con's first paragraph mostly consists of claims but no evidence, ending with this:

"and the message to women is: you are not good enough just the way you are, you must be better looking or you're not worth it. All that matters is the way you look. There is nothing else about you that matters, you are purely eye candy for men. Shut up and look sexy, that's all you're worth."

(Spelling and grammar corrections are bolded.)

But men are taught that they're not good enough just the way they are as much as woman are, if not more. Except the male desirable characteristics are different. They are commonly bravery and muscle. Just like beauty can be worked on, so can bravery and muscle, and some people are born naturally more beautiful just as some people are born more brave or with more potential for muscle growth.

bbbbut males aren't objectified as well, obviously!!!!

Muscles and bravery being held so highly means that being a nerd isn't generally seen as a good thing. Just as ugliness or lack of beauty is primarily a female problem, lack of bravery and muscle, and having cowardice is primarily a male problem.

Snake talking to three equalsAngry nerds

Look at the examples above, these nerds aren't treated like people with complex personalities of their own, these are objects to be violently abused and victimized. That's what your equivalent of a feminist analysis would be for men.

Con's second paragraph is also full of assertions, and he also urges me to watch "Killing us softly" on YouTube. I'm not debating against any external sources, and he never actually clearly states what the discrimination women face is, that men don't also face.

Rebuttal of Con's round 2

#1: The right to financial abortion

Con argues that only one sex should have a say on the baby, but he's missing the point. The men aren't allowed to pull out of having a baby, and he should have as much right to say that as the woman because that foetus/baby wouldn't be possible without his foetus. On top of this, men are still expected to pay for the child that they never wanted in the first place. Is that freedom?

#2: The Cancer funding gap

My source from the first round quoted a charity saying that prostate cancer funds are lagging, and it although prostate cancer is one of the more curable cancers, it has been estimated by the British Journal of Cancer that it will be the most common form of cancer by 2030 [1]. This is also striking as it is the most common form of male cancer, which again points back to the fact that breast cancer is publicized far more than prostate cancer is despite them both being the most prevalent form of cancer for females and males respectively. This is discrimination in favour of women.

#3: The Domestic violence shelter gap

I must say that despite what my opponent implied, Domestic violence rates cannot simply be ignored, or missed. The percentage of male domestic violence victims being nearly 40% higher than what my opponent thinks the domestic violence shelter owners thought it was all this time. The difference between 1/181 and 4/10 is not an easy thing to miss.

The cause of this discrimination is the view society has of women being the oppressed underdogs and men being the high rulers who never have any problems with anything in their lives and have it so much easier. When a woman fights against her husband making him look defenseless, society's response is "You go girl!", whilst you just need to stop the genders and people are quick to interfere, because that is wrong [2].

#4: Women are favoured by the criminal justice system

There is some truth to the statement that men are (generally, but not necessarily inherently) stronger. But natural strength isn't all that matters whether you're talking about domestic violence or any other crime, as women are more likely to compensate for this by using weapons [3], and they are equally or more agressive than men [4]. Therefore, it is discrimination, and you cannot claim that men are the more aggressive gender.

#5 & #6: The homelessness gap & The massive differences in suicide rates by Gender

My opponent suggests that I don't consider biological differences between men and women in both cases. Con describes men as "impulsive, aggressive and careless". These traits generally go hand in hand, and I have proved that women are equally as aggressive as men, if not more, and my opponent, more importantly, has offered no good reason to think that men are the more aggressive, impulsive, or careless gender, and even less so that these differences would be substantial enough to mean that men are 3.5x as likely to commit suicide than women and are 9x more likely to be homeless.

My opponent also suggests that a possible reason is that men are more likely to do things that they'll regret, such as rape and murder. But this relies on several assumptions, none of which he's given us any good reason to believe. Namely:

1. That men are responsible for ~90% of rapes/murders
2. That men are impulsive, and significantly more so than women.
3. That there are large numbers of rapes and murders that are regretted to such a degree that the person responsible sees no possible option but to kill himself.

The third contention seems extremely unlikely when you consider the fact that 97% of rape cases will result in the person responsible not having to spend any time in prison [5], and only 10% even lead to an arrest [6].

Therefore, it still stands that it seems silly that women would be more discriminated than men.

Thank you.

Sources
[1] http://www.nature.com...
[2] https://www.youtube.com...
(The video about Domestic violence)
[3] http://www.theguardian.com...
[4] http://j4mb.wordpress.com...
[5] Department of Justice, Felony Defendents in Large Urban Counties: average of 2002-2006
[6] FBI, Uniform Crime Reports: 2006-2010



Tommy.leadbetter

Con

Firstly I would like to re-instate my argument more clearly.

My opponents stance is that men are discriminated more than women in the UK.

1. There are no laws that discriminate against men. So there is no lawful discrimination of men, therefore men are not discriminated more than women, on the grounds that they are not discriminated at all.

2. Women are objectified relentlessly by mainstream media, damaging their self esteem. Men are beggining to be subject to the same thing, but on a much smaller scale.

3. Women cannot be on the front-line in the army, but men can be mid-wives. Women are thusly discriminated against more than men here, not just as much as.

4. Women are expected to be more responsible to their children than men, putting additional pressure on them not subject to men. I am not arguing whether this is right or wrong, but simply stating it as another example by which men are not discriminated.

5. As I have already shown that men are not discriminated against lawfully, we must look more keenly. One way to see if any group (minority, ethnic e.t.c) is being discriminated against in a society, is to look at the positions, wealth and power of that group. So lets do that. Women earn 15% less (1). Only one in five members of government are women (2). Women own, on average, 17% less wealth than men (3). So women are on average, poorer, paid less and less powerful than men. So men cannot be discriminated more than women. Maybe the same, but certainly not more.

Rebuttals.

You say men are subject to the same objectification and stereotyping e.c.t. This is true to an extent, but doesn't show how men are discriminated 'more' than women.

However, I cannot leave somebody saying that men are subject to exactly the same objectification by media, undisputed. Have you ever herd of the Bechdel test? The test is, (and its to be subject to films): does the film have more than one female character. Do they talk to each other. When they talk, is it about a man. Now, in a world where men are discriminated, you would expect that very few films that would actually show this degree of sex bias towards men wouldn't you? Well in fact, 43.3% of film fail this test (4). Meaning that almost half of our films are incredibly sex bias, and in favour of men! Women are not represented or made to seem important, heroic e.t.c in almost half of our films. So this is almost proof that women are discriminated by film at least just a bit more than men. Certainly, men are not discriminated against more than the women. This is just in fim, but the rest of media falls in line with the same cultural narrative.

As for the rest of media if you need an explanation, here is a quote from a study on music videos: "Compared to male artists, female artists were more sexually objectified, held to stricter appearance standards, and more likely to demonstrate sexually alluring behavior" (5). Again though, you don't need this to tell you that, if you watch the music channel yourself.

Women spend $151 billion more than men on beauty products (6) demonstrating that women are more self-conscious and worried about there appearance.

So no, your search on google images for 'abs', does not convince me against everything that I see daily on tv and billboards.

Male nerds are quirky and loveable.

You argue that I have missed the point: that men have no right to pull out of a pregnancy and that's what's bad. I think you miss the point. The reality of the situation is that, if the man can choose to back out, then he can force someone to have an abortion. So its not possible to allow a man such rights, when they inflict so severely on someone else. But I also think you miss this point: You say a man cannot back out of having a child? Why not use protection? If your not 'ready', as you put it. Don't make forced abortion legal! This point does not stand.

More funding for female cancer than male? Well the least funding goes to the biggest killer (heart problems) like I said, and so this is not an accurate measure of discrimination.

Domestic violence shelter gap. Again, this is because it was unheard of until a few years ago. There will be sufficient care given to those men who need it, and they will not be discriminated against. It was not an active choice to make more homes for women, it was a reaction to a realisation of domestic violence against women in society.

You say men are not more aggressive, and I assume your point is that they are NOT more likely to go to jail. Well I would argue men are more aggressive, physically violent and impulsive. It's in our genes, for males who dominate reproduce more. That's why we are bigger than females: because being aggressive has been what makes us successful. Because successful women were not necessarily aggressive, they did not evolve to be more tough, like men have. The proof is in your blood. Society also has a habit of teaching males to be impulsive, exploratory and dominant. Where as women are encouraged to be neat, tidy, responsible, well-behaved and 'lady-like' (i.e. not to get muddy or play rugby e.t.c). Women who don't conform are labeled Tom-boys. So not only our genes, but our society also encourages males to have characters that are more likely to lead to crime.

They are NOT favoured by the criminal justice system, for the system is legally unbiased.

I don't argue that I know the reasons why people commit suicide, or become homeless. But I do know, just from my own experience and study of male sub-culture, that males are far more likely than females to make the bad choices that lead to these lives. Why, what are you saying? Than homeless women have different laws to homless men? They don't.

You say: 97%of rape cases result in nobody going to prison. Well, that's not so bad for men who only fall victim to 1 in ten rapes (7). Many of which the perpetrators where actually male. Women, who make up the vast majority of the victims, are obviously worse off. I cannot understand why you would make such an argument.

Thank you.

Sources.

(1)http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
(2)http://www.parliament.uk...
(3)https://www.duncanlawrie.com...
(4) http://bechdeltest.com...
(5)http://www.researchgate.net...
(6)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
(7)https://www.rainn.org...
Debate Round No. 3
JacobGibbsDofE

Pro

Rebuttal

"1. There are no laws that discriminate against men. So there is no lawful discrimination of men, therefore men are not discriminated more than women, on the grounds that they are not discriminated at all."

Actually, there are.
  • As I've already shown in a previous round, men aren't entitled to a financial abortion.
  • Women cannot be forced to serve in the army, whilst men can be.
  • As I've already established, the courts system is biased in favour of women

"2. Women are objectified relentlessly by mainstream media, damaging their self esteem. Men are beggining to be subject to the same thing, but on a much smaller scale."

  • My opponent has not established that women are more often objectified than men are.
  • My opponent has not established that the real-world consequences of this objectification would be any worse for women.
  • My opponent has not established that objectification of people who are (fe)/male in the media is overall a negative thing.

"3. Women cannot be on the front-line in the army, but men can be mid-wives. Women are thusly discriminated against more than men here, not just as much as."

Being a mid-wife doesn't take the amount of skill that it takes to be on the front-line in the army. Yes, it may still take a lot of hard work, but it doesn't take the same amount of skill. Also, it is now possible for women to be on the front-line in the army [1].

"4. Women are expected to be more responsible to their children than men, putting additional pressure on them not subject to men. I am not arguing whether this is right or wrong, but simply stating it as another example by which men are not discriminated."

However, what my opponent isn't mentioning is how similar pressure is on the man to get a job. But there may even be less pressure on women to have children now, as more young women are now choosing dogs over babies [2].

"5. As I have already shown that men are not discriminated against lawfully, we must look more keenly. One way to see if any group (minority, ethnic e.t.c) is being discriminated against in a society, is to look at the positions, wealth and power of that group. So lets do that. Women earn 15% less (1). Only one in five members of government are women (2). Women own, on average, 17% less wealth than men (3). So women are on average, poorer, paid less and less powerful than men. So men cannot be discriminated more than women. Maybe the same, but certainly not more."

My opponent is assuming that these facts are due to discrimination, when the more plausible explanation is that women tend to choose careers in childcare rather than to work in construction or to become a CEO, women generally work fewer hours [3], and women tend to stay at home more than men to look after and raise children.
My opponent has also not given any possible reason in this entire debate as to answer why a more competent woman cannot work hard and become a CEO, or an MP.

"However, I cannot leave somebody saying that men are subject to exactly the same objectification by media, undisputed. Have you ever herd of the Bechdel test? The test is, (and its to be subject to films): does the film have more than one female character. Do they talk to each other. When they talk, is it about a man. Now, in a world where men are discriminated, you would expect that very few films that would actually show this degree of sex bias towards men wouldn't you? Well in fact, 43.3% of film fail this test (4). Meaning that almost half of our films are incredibly sex bias, and in favour of men!"

It doesn't matter how many films fail or pass this test, because either way, it isn't an indicator of a certain film having a bias/discrimination based on sex. Different films can have different target audiences. How many chick flicks do you think would've passed this test if the genders were switched around?
Again, my opponent has not established why an equally competent woman wouldn't be able to work hard and get a role in a certain genre of film if she really wanted to.
What my opponent isn't telling us here is how many men are depicted as perverts, or violent, etc. If he wants to argue that this isn't discrimination because it's accurate of reality, then why isn't it sexist that men get a lot of leading roles in films, and jobs in leadership, as both men and women prefer a male boss [4].

"As for the rest of media if you need an explanation, here is a quote from a study on music videos: "Compared to male artists, female artists were more sexually objectified, held to stricter appearance standards, and more likely to demonstrate sexually alluring behavior" (5). Again though, you don't need this to tell you that, if you watch the music channel yourself."

Sexual objectification is not the only form of objectification, and certainly not the only form of harmful objectification. Examples of desired male attributes are bravery and muscle, whilst desired female attributes are beauty and being cute. How many women do you see with their tops off in Rom coms/Chick flicks/Twilight?

"Women spend $151 billion more than men on beauty products (6) demonstrating that women are more self-conscious and worried about there appearance."

That would make sense because they're female beauty products. However, there's not an equivalent product readily available, cheap, and claiming to make you brave, or confident, or give you a six pack. How many hours do you think girls spend in football training? Not many, I'd say!

"So no, your search on google images for 'abs', does not convince me against everything that I see daily on tv and billboards."

The difference being that I provided proof for my side!

"Male nerds are quirky and loveable."

I'm not sure what you're responding to there, but the nerds depicted in the media are socially awkward, humourous in their failure to attract members of the opposite sex and as shown above, even physically abused. Plus, they don't have complex personalities of their own. Therefore, this is vicious objectification.

"But I also think you miss this point: You say a man cannot back out of having a child? Why not use protection? If your not 'ready', as you put it."

*You're. Here's the thing, is that no contraception has a 100% success rate, people like having sex, and people make mistakes. You are still denying a man to be able to pull out of having to provide for a child he doesn't want to have and doesn't want the woman to have, whilst women do have that right.

"More funding for female cancer than male? Well the least funding goes to the biggest killer (heart problems) like I said, and so this is not an accurate measure of discrimination."

It looks like my opponent doesn't think lack of funding for one gender's exclusive cancer and the other gender's overly funded primary exclusive cancer is discrimination. Denying the problem doesn't mean it isn't there.

"Domestic violence shelter gap. Again, this is because it was unheard of until a few years ago. There will be sufficient care given to those men who need it, and they will not be discriminated against. It was not an active choice to make more homes for women, it was a reaction to a realisation of domestic violence against women in society."

My opponent here has completely ignored my arguments on this point from the previous round. The domestic violence rates for men obviously being approximately ~40% more than what domestic violence shelter building patterns suggested is not an accident. You cannot simply ignore that scale of suicides, injuries, and deaths caused by aggressive female-on-male violence.

"Society also has a habit of teaching males to be impulsive, exploratory and dominant."

It seems like my opponent has been watching too many feminist propaganda films. Contrary to popular feminist belief, men and women aren't exactly the same in every single way. We are a sexual dimorphic species [5], and no scientific study has ever concluded that these two groups of people who are obviously exactly the same just so happened to create some rules for them and some rules for the others. Not only that, but for some reason we're so inclined to follow these roles that 99.99% of people do, without ever being sat down and told that this is the right way to behave.

"They are NOT favoured by the criminal justice system, for the system is legally unbiased."

This is just an assertion, and doesn't attempt to refute any of my arguments whatsoever.

"I don't argue that I know the reasons why people commit suicide, or become homeless. But I do know, just from my own experience and study of male sub-culture, that males are far more likely than females to make the bad choices that lead to these lives. Why, what are you saying? Than homeless women have different laws to homless men? They don't."

Con offers no sources to back up his claims. However, the least this proves is that women are not more discriminated against than men. But these alarming facts do indicate that there is discrimination against men.

Con has also still failed to prove:

  • That men are impulsive, and significantly more so than women.
  • That there are large numbers of rapes and murders that are regretted to such a degree that the person responsible sees no possible option but to kill himself.

Therefore, con still has no non-discrimination based explanation for the gaps in Suicide rates and homelessness by gender.

Thank you.

Sources
[1] http://www.theguardian.com...
[2] http://nypost.com...
[3] http://online.wsj.com...
[4] http://www.gallup.com/poll/165791/americans-prefer-male-boss.aspx
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...





Tommy.leadbetter

Con

Tommy.leadbetter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by JacobGibbsDofE 2 years ago
JacobGibbsDofE
Rule three is "Con cannot write or imply an argument in the fourth round", so it wouldn't have mattered anyway, I'm afraid.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
My computer said that my argument was posted. I'm gutted, for I spend ages in on it.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Seriously?
Posted by Aithlin 2 years ago
Aithlin
What do you mean by "discriminated"?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
JacobGibbsDofETommy.leadbetterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved without a doubt men are disciminated against more than women, sources and facts on his side, Con was unable to dispute almost anything Pro stated.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
JacobGibbsDofETommy.leadbetterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit--Con was supposed to type "End of debate", but ran out the clock instead. As to arguments, I don't necessarily think that Pro gave the most compelling case, but Con simply didn't respond, and in some cases seemed to concede points that prima facie upheld the motion (for example, when he agreed that the distribution of shelters was discriminatory, but claimed that it would be fixed in time...the resolution is "are" discriminated against, present tense, and that basically conceded that they are discriminated against at present.). Con's arguments would have benefited from more rigor. Arguments to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.