The Instigator
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Josh_b
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is defending women's rights sexist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 784 times Debate No: 48300
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

The_Scapegoat_bleats

Con

josh_b accepted this challenge and then dropped out by forfeiture. So, let's try this again?

Based on our discussion here: http://www.debate.org... about men's right to have a say in the matter of abortion or childbirth.

josh_b has accused me of sexism:
"I'm advocating for men to have the right to Veto an abortion, not force an abortion. If a woman didn't take proper precautions and the man wants to keep and raise the child, he should be allowed the opportunity to do that. Being that the woman didn't take the precautions either, it would be unfair to punish the man because of gender roles. Scapegoat, I believe that you have come to an impasse in which you have clearly proved yourself to be sexist."

In response to my statement:
"As it is, child support is regulated to EXCLUDE a man's say in this matter. If the child is born, the man pays for not taking proper precautions. This is due to centuries of sexual oppression of women.
It was created to protect women who are used as sex toys and then disregarded. It was created to protect children from being unprovided for in those cases where abortion is not an option (where it's illegal, e.g.). So child support is legal and fair.
The question is: should men be allowed to circumvent GOVERNING LAW by making women abort?
Why would we allow this?
Change the law on alimony, then we'll have this discussion again, but as it is, the law above financial interests!"

I want a proper argument proposed by him how this makes me sexist.

My resolution:
Women's rights are to be defended. A differentiation between sexes exists already, but to the disadvantage of women. For the purpose of defending women's rights in this unbalanced situation, addressing women's rights separately from men's rights is a logical necessity.
It is not sexist if the intention is to achieve a situation where women are no longer denied the right to decide for themselves in any and all instances men would have it.
This must take into account that the anatomy of women and men differs and thus women are entitled to decide about their body with all of its functions as men are entitled to decide about their body with all of its functions.
It is possible that laws about the relationship between sexes are unjust and could need change. But as long as a change of the law is not possible, calling a person sexist for abiding by the law is insulting.
Publicly scolding a person for defending women against oppression is prohibited in analogy to the 2005 ruling by the Supreme Court:
"In Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, the Supreme Court rules that Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, also inherently prohibits disciplining someone for complaining about sex-based discrimination. It further holds that this is the case even when the person complaining is not among those being discriminated against." from http://www.infoplease.com...

The Merriam-Webster's definition of sexism goes against josh_b's insinuation:



"sex·ismnoun \G2;sek-G6;si-zəm\: unfair treatment of people because of their sex;
especially: unfair treatment of women



Full Definition of SEXISM




1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: discrimination against women



2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex"



So, I see it as evident that I cannot be called sexist for my stance in the matter.


Rules:
First round is reserved for josh_b to present his case. Burden of proof lies on him to prove me sexist.
Second round is for my argument, rebuttal and josh_b's rebuttal.
Round three is for final rebuttals and closing arguments.


Josh_b

Pro


First off I would like to have you clarify. Is the resolution “Defending women’s right is sexist” or is the resolution “The_Scapegoat_bleats is a sexist.” Because the title says one thing but you claim another thing in the debate.


If the resolution is “defending women’s right is sexist,” then I forfeit because defending gender rights isn’t sexist. You are troll for sending me this debate in the first place if that’s the resolution. If this is about whether or not I think you are sexist, and you have made feminist sexist remarks, and you want people to decide on whether I’m right or not, you are still a troll. This is the second time that you’ve sent me this debate. I didn’t respond to it because your first round indicates that you are a troll and started this debate for the purpose of trolling. I don’t like trolls or their debates.


There was a lot of stuff in that opinion that we could have reasonably debated. Should the laws be changed? Is copulation consent to pregnancy? Should babies be referred to as miniature humans? Or even “should fathers have a say in an abortion when there are no medical complications, or issues of malpregnancy?”


Now on to why you are sexist.


For some reason, you feel the need to focus on “EXCLUDE a man’s say in this matter.” Completely capitalizing “exclude,” and then referring to “centuries of sexual oppression of women” as though it is somehow related to the topic of Men having a say so in an abortion of their children teems with sexism. And it’s a problem because it isn’t true. If you think it is, tell it to Cleopatra, The Queen of England, the Queen of Spain, Hillary Clinton, or any of the other Historical Women who have been in prestige leadership roles. The fact that you would even bring up such Fallacious propaganda is sexist. Then you go on some tirade about women being used as sex toys when the subject is not about women being mistreated in any way. There is certainly no reason for a non sexist to irrationally generalize all women in that manner.


You further prove your sexist behavior in this debate by generalizing men in a negative way saying that oppression of women is “as men would have it” and that women are “denied the right to decide for themselves.” Women are obviously not denied the right to decide for themselves because we are talking about the real issue of women having full control over the decision to abort, or not abort when unmarried men are not even given the option to parent their own children.


"In Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, the Supreme Court rules that Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, also inherently prohibits disciplining someone for complaining about sex-based discrimination. It further holds that this is the case even when the person complaining is not among those being discriminated against."


I believe that discrimination is occurring. Real discrimination over the decision to unilaterally raise a child, when both parties have consented to the creation of that child, is happening. Even your inclusion of this statement about the board of education gives reason for me to believe that you are sexist. You are trying to use a law that isn’t relative to the situation to further your purposes. Let me know how you or anyone else been disciplined or discriminated against and why you think this applies.


And Finally the bolding that you have put on the definition of Sexism further proves your sexist behavior. Is sexism only toward women, or is it a universal term that can be used for the devaluation of either men or women? Because the definition has a semicolon that indicates the part you bolded is an afterthought. Sexism goes both ways. Your style of hostile sexism belittles men in a way that borders on full blown misandry.


Your statements clearly define you as a person that falls into definition 2 of the possible definitions of sexism i.e. “behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex,” for the reasons that I have stated.


Debate Round No. 1
The_Scapegoat_bleats

Con

(The resolution has been detailed above to the greatest possible extent, but still:

The title is by necessity short. The full resolution explains that by calling me a sexist for my stance in the matter of a male say in the question of abortion you are calling the defense of women's rights in general sexist, too.

Your simple task is to either show that defending women's rights is sexist in itself, or that I'm not defending women's rights with my proposition AND am a sexist or to somehow show how I can be sexist AND defend women's rights at the same time.

You have complete choice in the method.)

My opponent has already conceded that defending gender rights is not sexist.
Women's rights are a gender right and defending them is then conceded not to be sexist.
My opponent has also conceded that sexism goes both ways.

So this means my opponent has agreed that either side is entitled to defend the rights of either sex. This means sexism is a matter of methods, not of content.

So my opponent has reduced the question to this:
"Is it sexist - and true in this particular case for "The_Scapegoat_bleats" - to use certain measures in defending any gender's rights?"

In other words, as proposed by my opponent:
"Your statements clearly define you as a person that falls into definition 2 of the possible definitions of sexism i.e. “behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex,” for the reasons that I have stated."

This is the case my opponent has stated, and on this topic of his choice I will now present my case and rebut his arguments.

Definitions from Merriam-Webster's:

foster verb
1: to help the growth or development of foster learning and a love of reading>

stereotype noun
an idea or statement about all of the members of a group or all the instances of a situation

Naturally, I agree with the definition by itself, as I was the one to enter it.
I argue that neither is there an innate connection between defending women's rights and this definition nor did I in any way do anything to justify my opponent calling me a sexist.

Part 1: Defending women's rights is not sexist by itself

As we already established, defending either gender's rights is basically equal. So, to be sexist within the borders of the given definition it would be necessary for the defense of women's rights to foster stereotypes.
But that is not something that the defense of women's right innately does. Because if it innately did, then so would defending men's rights, and BOTH would be sexist. But my opponent reserves judgement for himself, which means he must consider himself not sexist, while he propagates men's rights. If he would consider himself sexist, he would have to admit that everybody else participating in a debate about gender rights would have to be sexist, but he chose to specifically accuse me.

Thus, he already conceded that defending women's rights is not sexist, in the original discussion.

Part 2: I did nothing to violate the general rule that defending gender rights is not sexist

In order for me to be called sexist it would have to be proved that I help the growth or development of an idea or statement about all of the members of a group or all the instances of a situation in regards to the matter of men having a say in a woman's decision of whether to have a child or abort it.

Let's have a look at quotes from the discussion under the provided link, all authored by me:

I did not refer to "all the instances of a situation":

"created to protect children from being unprovided for in those cases where abortion is not an option"

"Change the law on alimony, then we'll have this discussion again"


"would have women be the birth-machines for men if they say so"

I did not refer to "all of the members of a group"

(In response to josh_b's proposition: "I'm advocating for men to have the right to Veto an abortion, not force an abortion.")
"And that's where you're LAEVING [sic] HALF OF THE RESOLUTION behind. Nice try."

"You're omitting the other side of the problem, with your bias towards women being the ones wanting the abortion. What about the far more likely point of men trying to wiggle themselves out of the responsibility for an unwanted child by making the woman have an abortion?
Should the mother indeed have to yield to the man if she wants to have the baby and he thinks the little one will be too expensive?"

I did not argue in favour of "social roles based on sex", thus not furthering a sexist stereotype. I argued for the medical right to self-determination:

"Women have a measurable risk of death in abortion and childbirth. Men's lives are never at stake in the entire process. Another person deciding over the mortal dangers of the woman is morally unacceptable - be it the husband or anybody else. All decisions on life an death belong to the person in hazard as long as that person is capable of the decision. That is a basic civil and human right.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;

"The question also allows for the mother to have the baby if the father doesn't want it."

So, I didn't even include gender into the debate in the first place as far as social roles are concerned. To which my opponent already conceded:

"Josh_b: I'm not a scientist, and I didn't invent women (or men). I don't know why only women have have a uterus."

Conclusion:

While my opponent has consistently disregarded one side of his own topic and has reduced the situation to WOMEN always being the ones wishing for abortion - which is a gender stereotype - I have consistently argued for both sides of the topic, insisting on covering the full spectrum of possibilities: men willing to have the baby, women willing to have the baby.
I am thus by the definition my opponent chose not "sexist". So if he still insists I am "sexist", he's basically saying that defending women's rights is sexist to begin with, as I did not violate any rules.


Rebuttals:


My opponent states we could have discussed a lot of topics. Correct. But instead, he chose to insult me as a "sexist".

My opponent claims he did not respond to my initial challenge, but this is a lie. He accepted and forfeited:



My opponent claims that “centuries of sexual oppression of women” is not true. As counter-examples he offers a few female monarchs, offering no evidence yet calling my proposition propaganda. I would like to counter this with this: http://womenshistory.about.com...
Mary Wollstonecraft's "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" is a great example of historical documentation of women's oppression, as a fact.
And since my opponent doesn't add sources at all, I'll just enter this weak Wikipedia source into the fray, for him to have something to counter: http://en.wikipedia.org...

He concedes women have the right to determine on abortion, but wants men to have a say in this, thus personally denying women the right to self-determination, yet he claims those rights are never denied. That's a contradiction:
Merriam-Webster: de·ny transitive verb
...: to refuse to accept or admit (something)

"Let me know how you or anyone else been disciplined or discriminated against and why you think this applies."
Simple: I have been called a sexist by josh_b on a public website for defending women's rights, while he did not call others sexist who defend men's rights in the same way. This is discriminating and humiliating, in order to make me yield.
Merriam-Webster:
DISCIPLINE
1: to punish or penalize for the sake of enforcing obedience
Public humiliation is a punishment, and in this case to enforce my silence.

Nothing my opponent has offered has proved me a sexist, nor does it justify calling defending women's rights sexist. He has so far only proved that calling me a sexist was an insult to the defense of women's rights as a whole.
Josh_b

Pro

The title is by necessity short. The full resolution explains that by calling me a sexist for my stance in the matter of a male say in the question of abortion you are calling the defense of women's rights in general sexist, too.

Nice try. I called you sexist for attacking men with negative biases and an attitude that fosters stereotypes of social roles based on sex

My opponent has already conceded that defending gender rights is not sexist.

Women's rights are a gender right and defending them is then conceded not to be sexist.

My opponent has also conceded that sexism goes both ways.

So this means my opponent has agreed that either side is entitled to defend the rights of either sex.

Wow! We agree on so much, why did you even start this debate?

This means sexism is a matter of methods, not of content.

If by methods, you mean assigning negative attributes to an entire group of people based on their gender, then sure your methods are the reason why you are sexist against men. But this argument is a Red Herring. You are not simply defending women, you are attacking men.

Rebuttals

Part 1: Defending women's rights is not sexist by itself

I agree. But you weren’t defending women, you were attacking men.

Your argument to “defending women” is a Red Herring fallacy.

http://youtu.be...

Part 2: I did nothing to violate the general rule that defending gender rights is not sexist

This statement is not true. Refer to the following statements made by The_Scapegoat_bleats:

EXCLUDE [any] man's say in this matter

centuries of sexual oppression of [all] women.

women who are used as sex toys and then disregarded

A differentiation between sexes exists already, but to the disadvantage of [all]women.

in any and all instances [all] men would have it

would have [all] women be the birth-machines for [all] men if they [all men] say so.

These statements do cross the line. The bolded statements are the most egregious.

"Women have a measurable risk of death in abortion and childbirth. Men's lives are never at stake in the entire process. Another person deciding over the mortal dangers of the woman is morally unacceptable - be it the husband or anybody else. All decisions on life an death belong to the person in hazard as long as that person is capable of the decision. That is a basic civil and human right.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;

I rebutted this statement in the Opinion Forum for being off topic. “Risk of Death” is a medical complication. The statement assumes that ALL women are at risk of death the moment they become pregnant. There is historical precedent that most women are not likely to die from pregnancy or child birth. The highest maternal death rate in 2008, in America, was 0.0024%. It in no way speaks to the other 99.9976% majority who are not at risk.

You're omitting the other side of the problem, with your bias towards [all] women being the ones wanting the abortion. What about the far more likely point of men trying to wiggle themselves out of the responsibility for an unwanted child by making the woman have an abortion?

This was never said to me, and should be excluded from considerations of this debate. This comment was directed toward Username: Psychedelic and should be regarded such.

Conclusion:

While my opponent has consistently disregarded one side of his own topic…

I have in no way disregarded women as not being able to choose to have a baby despite the man wanting her to have an abortion and I have advocated that. To suggest otherwise is a straw man. Men shouldn’t be allowed to force abortions when the woman doesn’t want it, and women should equally be held to this standard. I believe consent was given to have a child by both parties at the time of conception.

and has reduced the situation to WOMEN always being the ones wishing for abortion - which is a gender stereotype –

You have committed a Straw man argument that further speaks to your sexism. I have never made such a statement or indicated such an idea. Your capitalization of “women” shows that you intend to portray the situation as ONLY WOMEN wishing for an abortion which is behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

I have consistently argued for both sides of the topic,

Prove it.

insisting on covering the full spectrum of possibilities: men willing to have the baby, women willing to have the baby.

All you have done is hide behind the law. You have at no point advocated for the rights of men who are willing and capable of raising their children in situations where the woman would rather see the child/potential child die/cease to exist.


I am thus by the definition my opponent chose not "sexist".

Well I guess the voters will decide.

So if he still insists I am "sexist", he's basically saying that defending women's rights is sexist to begin with, as I did not violate any rules.

Again with the straw man argument, defending women’s rights is not sexist. Attacking men for their rights (or lack thereof) is sexist.

I didn’t respond to your first challenge. I was fully aware that the debate would be deleted after I accepted it and didn’t post a first round. KFC. Truth< I responded to the message you sent me.


Because obviously you think of me as a man and men wouldn’t back down from a challenge if they have a self proposed reputation to uphold.KFC. But you wouldn’t be able to recognize me as a Debater, it’s obviously because I’m a man and you are a sexist. KFC.

Conclusion

The_Scapegoat_bleats exhibits behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex and is thereby a sexist.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Scapegoat_bleats

Con

"I called you sexist for attacking men with negative biases"
I can't see where I attacked men based on any bias.
As I have shown with citations, I granted men that they could be in favour of an abortion or not, each for different reasons.

Which alleged "stereotype" did I "foster" with my attitude? I don't see any argumentation to back that claim up. So then: name the "stereotype" I foster.

"assigning negative attributes to an entire group of people based on their gender" And where did I do that?
"you are attacking men" So you claim, but with what do you back it up? You just repeat your insinuations and insults.

"Your argument to “defending women” is a Red Herring fallacy." My opponent lacks any and all argumentation to back this claim up. He might just as well have accused me of painting the moon green. I do - as resolved in the initial post - defend women's right to medical self-determination.

My opponent believes that ADDING WORDS to my quotations is a proper tool of backing up his claims.

-Yes, the LAW excludes any man's say in the matter. That, however, isn't MY argument, I just reported it.

-No, I never wrote that ALL women were oppressed. The laws protecting women's rights were put into effect to protect those women in danger of oppression which had - sadly - occurred to many women in the past. That is a fact.

- Yes, "women who are used as sex toys". Not "all" women. This clearly shows that my opponent cannot even understand what he's attacking here. He quotes a part of my argument that clearly discerns a minimum of two groups: women being used as sex toys and women not being used as sex toys. If that differentiation was not there, I would have written: "all women". I didn't.

- No, I didn't write "all instances ALL men would have it". Again, this is clearly a discernment between "any and all instances men would have it" and "the other instances in which there is no man who would have it."
My opponent has, in our initial discussion, already shown that he doesn't understand the "appeal to numbers" fallacy:

"Josh_b:
I agree. If you can prove that all child births are likely to result in the death of the mother. I'll even take a proven majority.
The_Scapegoat_bleats:
Argumentum ad numerum, appeal to probability - call it what you want: it's a fallacy.
One dead mother on the insistance of a father is sufficient to disprove your argument, by way of deduction."

I explicitly never included all men, or even a majority. I believe that a single counter-example is always enough. But that is a logical deduction, and has nothing to do with stereotypes.
In this particular case: there can be no doubt that instances exist where "men would have it". It doesn't have to be all of them. Because where do we draw the line? With the majority? Should we accept any injustice as long as less than 50% of the population support it? This is ridiculous.

- I agree that this bold statement is most egregious indeed: "would have [all] women be the birth-machines for [all] men if they [all men] say so."
My opponent actually needs to distort this one sentence in THREE PLACES in order to twist it to his needs.
The proper quote reads: "You call me sexist? Okay, that's an insult I won't take from a man who would have women be the birth-machines for men if they say so."

A MAN. SINGULAR.
Yes, "women". But that isn't MY stance in the matter, it is the proposition of josh_b to give all fathers a say - rather the decisive vote - in matters regarding the medical self-determination of all mothers: "I'm advocating for men to have the right to Veto an abortion"

HERE we have the man who's extending his personal judgement to all members of a gender.

"Risk of Death” is a medical complication."
That is nonsense. How can a RISK be a medical complication? We're talking about a base mortality rate in childbirth and abortion. It's not a complication, it's a fact for which I provided a proper source.

"This was never said to me, and should be excluded from considerations of this debate."
My opponent has attacked my character as being sexist: "Scapegoat, I believe that you have come to an impasse in which you have clearly proved yourself to be sexist."

An "impasse" is, by definition of Merriam-Webster's, "a situation in which no progress seems possible", which is a verdict about my character. I see any statement proving his allegations false and ill-intended as admissible evidence. Especially since this still took place on the opinion site josh_b instigated, answering HIS question: "Should fathers have a say in an abortion when there are no medical complications, or issues of malpregnancy?
"
So, my commentary on that user's opinion was still in answer to josh_b's question.

"I have in no way disregarded women as not being able to choose to have a baby despite the man wanting her to have an abortion and I have advocated that."
"I have never made such a statement or indicated such an idea."
Then let's look at this: "@scapegoat What? Talk about changing the subject. I'm advocating for men to have the right to Veto an abortion, not force an abortion."
That was all my opponent ever said on the topic: That he does NOT advocate men forcing an abortion. And only because he felt it was "changing the subject" to discuss the other end of his proposal to give men a "say" in the matter of the mother having the baby or not. He refused to further discuss that point, omitting it completely. Only NOW he comes up with his post-hoc explanation of how he allegedly advocates women's rights to have the child.

The original discussion had several other users complain about men being obligated to pay for an unwanted child:
"bubbatheclown If men have no say, then they shouldn't have to pay child support if the mother decides to keep the baby. Fair's fair, right?"
I went against that statement: "@bubbahtheclown: How is that fair?..."

My opponent was nowhere to advocate women's rights there, proving himself biased in his crusade for men's rights alone.

"Prove it." I did, see the quotes. Extended.

"All you have done is hide behind the law." How could you hide behind the law? What from? Only from illegal activities, surely? So does my opponent say he's up to something illegal?

"You have at no point advocated for the rights of men who are willing and capable of raising their children in situations where the woman would rather see the child/potential child die/cease to exist."
Because this right does not exist. I cannot argue for something that isn't. Why would we give either side a VETO? If anything, both sides would get a veto, which would cancel each other out. This seems impractical. It has nothing to do with men's rights. And how does this make me sexist by my opponent's definition anyway?

Accepting a challenge is most certainly a sort of response. Forfeiting a debate is also a response: a documentation of a lack of respect.
My opponent tries to turn the fact against me that I addressed him as a man. Were he a woman, I would have written "For a woman ...". But I can't change that he's male.
"men wouldn’t back down from a challenge if they have a self proposed reputation to uphold" That is what my opponent again puts into my mouth. However, if we look closely: I called him "that one", making it clear that his gender doesn't make a difference to me.
If I didn't accept my opponent as a debater, we would not have this very debate. The problem I have is not with men, it's with cowards of either sex who would accept a debate only to evade the discussion: http://www.debate.org...

So, nothing my opponent has offered changes the conclusion I presented above. I extend my arguments and conclusion.

He has not provided any true evidence, only falsified quotes taken from my posts.
He has only repeated the same insulting remarks over and over again.
He has conceded that he publicly disciplined me, by not refuting my explanation which he demanded.

I hope that the audience will speak a clear verdict in this case, and thank all for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Dear Relativist,
no need to thank me of all people.
I actually expected nobody to vote on such a personal matter. So it's my privilege that you actually took that time. No matter which side your vote would have gone to. Honestly. After all, it's only a debate, and I can't win 'em all.
Funny thing about the link, though: it works fine for me... Ah, computers!

Have fun, take care!
Posted by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
I hope you're content with my RFD, sorry if i sound a little rude in the beginning. especially that "Wasnt funny" line or calling u a liar,we're all humans and neither of us should be inferior. All in all, i didnt regret voting, I actually learn how to defend my self should anyone accuse me. Thanks to both of you. Was a fun debate, worth the 45 minute read and write.
Posted by Josh_b 2 years ago
Josh_b
Thanks for the vote Relativist.
Posted by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
Part 1/2 MAIN RFD

Pro's justification for ignoring the challenge is by using personal attacks,(Con is sexist, so I'm not accepting). An Ad Hom warrants loss of conduct. Why didn't Pro posted last round? Wasn't funny, accusing someone is very serious,either way loss of conduct for not following rules. This debate revolves primarily on Positive discrimination whether women have that right that men should be excluded. It descends into irrelevant personal attacks, which both agreed as the new resolution.
To start with the new resolution, Pro's history point was lack luster, as this serves as a voice for feminists but also serves as a strong point for men should one argue on grounds of positive discrimination. Con"s counter source was reliable but source bombing doesn"t count(issue of Wikipedia). Pro"s only defence against this is providing a few leaders that were women. Con wins this part.

Con also wins on issue of giving births, as con justifies risks as a reason for the decline. The statistic Pro provided does prove that the risks were close to neil, but Pro"s argument involves aspects of generalisations. This is common with numerical data, interpreting it to suit one"s needs is stereotypical, There are other variable to consider.All Con had to do was to dig deeper, and Con will disapprove pro"s point. Con responded this with a valid point, as Con pointed out that it involves DEATH, which is a serious case no matter how small the number.

I don"t think scoring on personal attacks would do me any good, so here is my main RFD. Feel free to object to it, send me a PM should any of you are unsatisfied with my verdict. Pro would have made a good case, that history is in no way justifiable to positively discriminate gender,but since 90% of it involves personal accusations, there was no discussion of it.
Posted by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
2/2 personal attack alternate rfd
Verdict on personal attacks

Judging personal attacks is weird, at I"m not well versed on how to classify it.

If you want my alternate weak RFD, it would be this. Con showed a picture that Pro lied regarding the challenge. So +1 to him. Pro accused Con excessively, using straw man and red herring fallacies. Pro essentially made the same mistake again that is making a generalised claim. Con elaborated it more and as such, Con wins this round as well.
Posted by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
Con's source on risks of death is a dead link.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
The_Scapegoat_bleatsJosh_bTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. New Amendments with Main RFD: Conduct was equal, as both debaters used their 'new' resolution which is basically a personal attack. It is too subjective for me to make a conclusion based on this type of resolution. Sorry.