The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
41 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

It's time to crackdown on geriatric spinsters

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,663 times Debate No: 8978
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (16)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

I was just thinking that it had been a while since I last posted one of my "crackdown" debates and I was pondering what section of society needed cracking down upon next when a woman came into the room and (for some reason) told me about how traumatic childbirth is. This outburst reminded me of a group of people who have been freeloading off the rest of us for far too long now and who certainly need cracking down upon, and need cracking down upon hard.

Now, it's well-known that women have a greater life expectancy than men and that they also earn less money and, therefore, pay less tax than men. So why do men have to work like toiling coolies all their lives to pay the taxes to provide state pensions for a bunch of frigid old biddies who never contributed their fair share to society either financially or by going through the trauma of childbirth in order to produce the next generation of taxpayers?

Some might call them "harmless old dears" and suggest that we should "leave them alone" but in capitalist societies citizens must take responsibility for themselves and unless they contribute something in lieu of taxes, such as suffering the ordeal of childbirth, the devil should be allowed to take the hindmost.

All I am saying is that the state pension should be extended to both sexes until the value of their tax contributions runs out, after which time they will have to take care of themselves.

Of course, this does not apply to the United States where pretty much all of the elderly poor are left to fend for themselves anyway.

Thank you.
Danielle

Con

Interesting view, Brian. I'll take a crack at it via 6 contentions which I will provide numerically below. I look forward to both an interesting and entertaining debate. Good luck!

1. Pro is suggesting that we crackdown on spinsters in general (as a whole). His argument is insufficient insofar as it assumes that childless women have paid less in taxes and/or debt to society than women with children. He hasn't proven that this is the case, nor has he proven that it applies to EVERY 'spinster.'

2. Pro is requiring that we crackdown on spinsters, as in unmarried and child-less women. Being a parent is therefore the variable between spinsters and women in general, so Pro has the burden of proving the value of home labor and/or childbirth is greater in comparison to other types of labor. In other words, Pro must prove that housework (or work done by stay-at-home moms) is unpaid labor worth the same or more than the value of women without children (spinsters) who probably worked in the general workforce instead.

3. Women paying less taxes than men is certainly evened out by the fact that The Glass Ceiling not only exists, but leads to women generally earning 75 cents to every dollar that a man working the same job and with the same credentials earns. In other words, if women were earning equal wages to men, they would be paying an equal amount of taxes. The system can fix itself here.

4. Pro writes, "In capitalist societies citizens must take responsibility for themselves." However, note that Pro fails to detail the disproportionate and perhaps unconstitutional reciprocaties of social programs such as Welfare, etc.

5. Why is it necessarily a good thing that all women reproduce? After all, the world is over-populated. Moreover, whose to say that a spinster couldn't contribute just as much to society without actually tax paying ,in such a way that a service like childbirth is offered instead? For instance, said spinsters could be the prostitutes, strippers and porn stars necessary to society in the sense that they help keep sexual predators off the street, keep marriages together, enable certain people to lose their virginity at a reasonable age, etc.

6. Finally Pro's suggestion of "the state pension should be extended to both sexes until the value of their tax contributions runs out, after which time they will have to take care of themselves" is an insufficient solution. First, that ignores part of the reason for having pensions in the first place (not burdening the elderly to work, assuming they could even find work and that it would be feasible for them to work). Second, Pro has not offered another way to care for the elderly when their "contributions" run out, nor has he argued why the government shouldn't have to. He is also leaving out the fact that unpaid labor (i.e. stay at home moms) exists and there is no existing system of valuing that work to date. Moreover, Pro has not suggested what should happen should said people die BEFORE their tax contributions run out.

Keeping these arguments and questions in mind, back to you, Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

Thanks to theLwerd for posting such a considered an eloquent response, which is no less than any regular member would expect from her. However, it behoves me to illustrate with all due respect, that, generally speaking, married women with children get a raw deal compared to spinsters.

You see, in the beginning, Mother Nature explained to humanity that the roles of the two sexes would be broadly organised as follows:

Men would get the best paid jobs and every day after work they would get to go to the pub, have a few beers with their pals, boast about their new mid-engined V10 twin-turbo Italian sports car, chat up the barmaid, play the fruit machine and then go home for his evening meal. After that he would watch sport on TV and drink some more beer until it was time to go to bed. At the weekends he would have a hobby, something exciting like power-boating or motor-racing or flying light aircraft - about which pastimes there would be loads of magazines in the newsagents.

Meanwhile, women would get the low paid jobs and after work, pick up the kids from school, go and do the shopping and then go home, clean the house up and prepare the evening meal. After that she would clear away the dishes, put the kids to bed and do some sewing until it was time to go to sleep. At the weekends she would do more shopping, more housework, more sewing and ferry the kids from pillar to post in her 4-cylinder, seven-seat Korean-built MPV.

On hearing this, the girls felt a bit short changed so they turned to Mother Nature and said:

Girls: Hey you miserable bitch, that's a flipping swizz! How come the boys get to do all the fun stuff while we do all the work?

Mother Nature: Okay, I see your point. I tell you what, if you are ever on a trans-Atlantic liner that hits an iceberg and sinks, you and the children will be first in the lifeboats (offer applies to First Class ticket-holders only).

Girls: No, you'll have to do better than that. How about some hobbies?

MN: You won't have time for hobbies. I tell you what though, I'll make your domestic chores your hobbies as well so by instinct you will really enjoy shopping and cooking and sewing and looking after the kids and there will be loads of women's magazines full of articles about buying clothes and recipe ideas and knitting patterns pull-outs and pages of childcare tips. How about that?

Girls: Yes, okay, but how about some compensation for the trauma of childbirth?

MN: You drive a hard bargain, but okay, I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'll let you all live about five years longer than men so that you'll have a little bit of well-deserved "my time" in your retirement. What do you say?

Girls: Okay, missus, you've got a deal.

And so the pact was made.

However, some of the girls said to themselves, ‘I'll take the priority seats in the lifeboats and the extra five years of life but there's no way I'm going to skivvy about looking after a husband and some snotty kids, I'm going to sit at home all day watching Jerry Springer and soap operas on TV".

So you see, while I agree with the arguments my opponent made in her first four points, this does not detract from my overall argument that geriatric spinsters have, in effect, had their cakes and eaten them.

...Cont./ in 'Comments' due to character limits.
Danielle

Con

First and foremost, Pro accepts my contentions 1--4 which state:

1) He has not proven that childless women have contributed less to society (monetarily or otherwise) than married women with children

2) He has not proven that childbirth and childcare is of greater monetary value (the issue of this debate) than actual workforce labor AND the taxes paid from that labor

3) He acknowledges that the elimination of the glass ceiling and equal wages paid to both men and women would eliminate the premise for the debate entirely; in other words, if society would simply pay out equal wages to both genders (for the same workload and credentials), then spinsters would not be paying less in taxes than men

4) Pro is calling for the "crackdown" on spinsters who contribute less to society via taxes; however, he has not taken into consideration those who actually exploit those taxes via social programs like welfare. In other words, women (or spinsters in general) MIGHT pay less money in taxes, but at least they're contributing to society. Why should they be punished while other women with children are actually USING those tax dollars?

Again, Pro agrees with those four major contentions which pretty much is enough to win me this entire debate alone. Moreover, he posted 1/2 of his round in the Comment Section which is vehemently disregarded on this site. We both have the burden of posting within the character parameters that Pro himself has set forth. However, for the sake of debate, I will address his few faulty arguments anyway:

5) First, note that Pro failed to respond to my argument that it might not be a good thing that all women reproduce since there is an over-population problem which leads to the depleting of resources and other troubles. That aside, he argues that spinsters might work a job that does not require them to pay taxes. Note that the key word here is "might," and additionally, other jobs for both men AND women (with children) exist where they don't pay taxes or get paid off-the-books. Pro has really made no argument here nor argued against mine, thus this should be yet another contention in my favor.

6) Pro has not answered my question of how or why senior citizens are expected to work in the first place (he merely noted that he sympathizes a.k.a. agrees with that position). He also hasn't included an alternative to helping the elderly, or even suggested that we not help them at all and leave them to rot. If he had, I would have negated that notion, but since he hasn't, explicitly, I won't waste the characters doing so. Instead I'll note that his main argument of, "Young women will know that the only way to guarantee a comfortable retirement would be to have children" is inherently flawed when paired with his other contentions.

Since child rearing doesn't lead to tax contribution, then what Pro is saying is that they should receive tax funding despite not contributing monetarily towards helping society. On the other hand, spinsters (unmarried, child-less women) should not receive help from society, even though they have contributed via taxes... hmm. This seems entirely illogical. Moreover, Pro has not indicated how this applies to married women with no children, or women with children who don't get married. Pro also hasn't mentioned whether or not this applies to disabled individuals or those with other handicaps. In other words, women might not have a choice regarding whether they are spinsters or not. It would be wrong and discriminatory to punish them.

In conclusion, this notion (resolution) is entirely non-sensical and obviously could not ever be an implemented policy in real life. Had Pro actually presented a coherent argument in its favor, or at the very least negated my points, it may have been an interesting proposition. However failure to do so should result in a vote for the Con.

Thanks, Brian, for an entertaining debate as always : )
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Paris 6 years ago
Paris
theLwerd I checked out this debate mostly because I did not know what a geriatirc spinster was lol but I read this debate and wonder if Pro is joking??? How can he be winning???
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
...Cont./ from R2.

So you see, while I agree with the arguments my opponent made in her first four points, this does not detract from my overall argument that geriatric spinsters have, in effect, had their cakes and eaten them.

Points 5 and 6 need to addressed separately, however.

5 -That some spinsters may have provided a valuable service to the community by becoming sex workers. Well, difficult to argue against this one except to say that they are usually handsomely rewarded for their efforts and mainly paid in cash, which means that they are unlikely to pay tax. In this case, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect them to invest in an index-linked private pension plan to cover the cost of their retirement, right?

6 – That society has a duty to care for all old folks regardless of their financial resources. I was arguing in Round 1 from the point of view of a ruthless capitalist, which I am not, so I do empathise with her position. Nevertheless, birth rates in developed capitalist countries are in decline (1) and, as a result, we have an ever-decreasing number of taxpayers to cover the cost of old age pensions.

That is why there needs to be a strong incentive for women to raise families rather than stay at home and stuff their faces in front of the telly. By withdrawing the automatic right to a life-long pension, young women will know that the only way to guarantee a comfortable retirement would be to have children.

In the final analysis, geriatric spinsters think that the world owes them a living, which it doesn't. If they have contributed sufficient funds to a private pension plan then that's fine but why should society pay for them to sit at home lazing about for five or so years longer than decent, hard-working men when they have not contributed to society either financially or by bringing up replacement taxpayers?

Thank you.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
Old habits die hard...this is a humorous debate so I've fixed it!
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age and/or rank criteria."
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
"Of course, this does not apply to the United States where pretty much all of the elderly poor are left to fend for themselves anyway."

Lol.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by philosphical 6 years ago
philosphical
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Paris 6 years ago
Paris
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by kaylitsa 7 years ago
kaylitsa
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by numa 7 years ago
numa
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70