The Instigator
kasmic
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Mister_Man
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

On balance modern Feminism is beneficial to the modern United States.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 7 votes the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,310 times Debate No: 63860
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (7)

 

kasmic

Pro

Resolve:On balance modern Feminism is beneficial to the modern United States.


1: Feminism: “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities”(1)

2: Benificial: "producing good or helpful results or effects : producing benefits."(2)

4 Rounds, 10,000 Characters, 72 hours

Round one: acceptance
Round two: opening arguments
Round three: Rebuttals
Round four: Final Rebuttals and closing Statements (no new arguments)

Thank you Mister_Man for agreeing to this debate. Good luck to you!

Burden of proof on pro. (me)


(1)http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2)http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Mister_Man

Con

Thanks very much for challenging me to this debate!

I probably should have clarified in our conversation, but we should both be able to agree that when we refer to Feminism, we are implying the movement - actions of others based on this belief. I'm sure everyone can agree men and women should be treated equal, but it would be up to you to prove they currently are not treated equally, and one gender is treated as inferior; given less opportunities for schools, jobs, etc.

My side of the argument is that we do have equal opportunities and we are treated equally - this means we can have practically any job, and the very few jobs that the majority of one gender dominates, there are equal jobs for the opposite gender to dominate in. Same goes for school classes and such.

Hopefully we can agree that when we talk about feminism, we aren't only referring to the idea that men and women should be treated equally, but actions of others influenced by feminism and movements aided toward achieving "equality."

Looking forward to a good debate!
Debate Round No. 1
kasmic

Pro

For those who comment I ask that you be respectful to both sides of this debate. This topic can be heated. Mister_man is someone I have seen around the website and respect as a well-reasoned individual. I like to think of my-self in the same way. There is no need for ad hominem attacks in the comments, as I imagine them not to be present in the debate either.

For this debate I intend to show convincingly the benefit that Feminism can and is providing to the U.S. today. My outline is very simple. I will…

1: Establish proof that men and women do not currently have equal rights and opportunities.
2: Present how Feminism can help and produce positive results in relation to this problem.

In so doing I will affirm the resolution that “on balance modern Feminism is beneficial to the modern United States.”

1: Establish proof that men and women do not currently have equal rights and opportunities.

A: Economic Injustice: This issue is also referred to as the pay gap.

“In 2012, the median earnings of American women working full time year-round were $37,791. American men earned a median income of $49,398. The gender wage gap has hovered at about 77 cents on the dollar since 2007.” (1)

This shows that generally men are paid more than women in the U.S. The typical response to this is to ask are women paid less because they choose lower-paying jobs? The answer is no as the following shows.

“Earnings are high for both women and men who work as computer and information systems managers. But while median earnings for men in 2011 were just over $98,000, median earnings for women were around $86,000. Likewise, aerospace engineers tend to earn a good living. But while a typical male aerospace engineer took home just over $100,000 in 2011, his female counterpart was paid $83,000.”(2)

This shows that Higher income occupations pay men more than women on average for the same work.

“Median earnings for male engineering technicians in 2011 were just over $56,000 compared with median earnings of $43,000 for female engineering technicians. Among drafters, typical earnings for men were just over $51,000 while typical earnings for women were just over $45,000.” (2)

This shows that median income occupations pay men more than women on average for the same work. Let us Move on to how poverty affects men and women.

“one in three Americans lives at or below the poverty line, and almost 70% are women and children.” Or that “Women represent nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers, concentrated in jobs that tend to be labor-intensive. They go without paid sick days or access to affordable child care. Moreover, women across the spectrum continue to earn less than men no matter the education level, profession or position” (3)

“Add to this picture that 40% of our nation's households with children rely on women as a primary or sole source of income,”(3)

Clearly the pay gap is empirically evident and as such is indisputable. Just as evident is that poverty affects women significantly more so than men. It can then be concluded that men and women do not have an equal rights or opportunity in the U.S. economy.

B: Domestic violence: I recognize that this is not solely a women’s issue. However, as I will show, it is empirically evident that women are, on balance, affected significantly more than men.

“Nearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had experienced an attempted rape at some point, and one in four reported having been beaten by an intimate partner. One in six women have been stalked, according to the report.” (4)

compare that to men,

“One in seven men have experienced severe violence at the hands of an intimate partner, the survey found, and one in 71 men — between 1 percent and 2 percent — have been raped, many when they were younger than 11.” (4)

Clearly domestic violence targets women significantly more than men. As this is a sad reality that 1 in 4 women deal with in our nation, it limits the opportunity and rights of women in a way not as true for men.

2: Present how Feminism can help and produce positive results in relation to this problem.

Despite only 1/5 of Americans define themselves as feminists, (5) the Feminist movement has, and will continue to help bring equality to the USA.

Historically, feminism helped bring the right to vote to women. The 60’s saw the Women’s rights movement, which brought up issues as equal rights and pay. It is true the U.S. has come a long way, but as is evident by the still present inequality, there is more to do. Feminism continues to bring these issues to light. Feminism continues to expose inequality. Feminism continues to lobby for justice. Feminism continues to be a positive force in the United States.

The following link provides “23 Ways Feminism Has Made the World a Better Place for Men” (6) No I do not intend this to be a comprehensive addition to my argument as it would be beyond my character limit, nor should any expect my opponent to have to refute any of the 23 ways listed herein. I wanted to include this for those reading who would like a broader look at the impact of feminism today. As well as show the vastness of material that exists to show the positive impact feminism has today.

Conclusion:

Men and women do not currently have equal rights and opportunities. This is empirically evident by the stats that I have provided. Women are not paid equally, or afforded the same opportunity in the U.S. economy. Women are affected significantly more than men by domestic violence, as this has become a common issue (1 in 4) it limits the opportunity and rights of women in a way that does not generally affect men.

Feminism has been, and will continue to be a force for good in the U.S. as it brings to light these injustices and lobbies for change.

Therefore we are lead to conclude that “on balance modern Feminism is beneficial to the modern United States.”


(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
(2) http://www.aauw.org...
(3) http://www.cnn.com...
(4) http://www.nytimes.com...;
(5)
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com...
(6) http://mic.com...

Mister_Man

Con

My apologies on the format, something happened to the site so I pasted from Microsoft Word... At least it still exists.


I appreciate the kind words, Kasmic, and same goes
to you. I like the way you debate and stay away from personal insults. I
completely agree - ad hominem attacks are useless.

Thanks for your opening arguments, I'll see if I have enough room to bring up
my own after addressing yours.


Economic Injustice

So I found a census .pdf that explains the lack of "representation"
for females in STEM occupations, however absolutely nothing regarding pay [1].
A lack of female dominance or "equal" employment of men and women has
(most likely) nothing to do with an employer's discrimination, bias, sexism,
etc. And I'd say (this makes sense) a lack of female representation is due to
more males choosing to enter this field of work than females, as females tend
to enter more "family" oriented positions, like child care, front of
house type stuff, where they are pretty much guaranteed to keep this position.
I also, for the life of me, could not find any statistics showing pay between
men and women based on same job, same work experience, same age, and same
education. I did however find a census .pdf that showed there is a 23%
difference between men and women for the most part, but this has nothing to do
with specific jobs [2].

When an employer pays a colleague more than another, what's the first thing
that comes to mind? "He/she must be better at this job"? "He/she
must have more experience"? "The boss must see more potential in
this individual"? Either way you look at it, this reasoning makes sense,
right? ...So why is it when as soon as a man gets paid more than a woman,
everyone blames sexism and says there's no possible way a male can be paid more
than a female other than blatant sexism? Why are work ethics, performance,
willingness to advance in the company (or not), not taken into perspective when
there is a difference in pay between males and females?

Would it be possible women just generally don't excel as much as men do in jobs
such as engineering or mathematics or technology, and excel more in jobs geared
toward "natural female" jobs, such as child care, or jobs that
require a personable personality?

I found a "top 10" on Discovery.com related to 10 gender differences
between men and women [3]. Most are whatever, but one really stood out, and
that is that, according to research and studies, Men handle lack of sleep
better than women do. This may sound like nothing, but in the long run,
would you prefer someone (notice I didn't specify gender) who can work longer
without getting burnt out? If you were an employer, you would - and that makes
sense, and doesn't have anything to do with discriminating against a gender.

According to KFF, approximately 20% of women live in poverty, whereas 18% of
men do [4]. This 2% difference most likely has nothing to do with
discrimination, and to say one group of people statistically have
"worse" lives means there is discrimination or sexism or racism or
whatever against that group would be ridiculous. On average, women don't have
as well paying jobs or as well "respected" jobs as men? I can agree
with that. However you would need to prove that this is directly related to
blatant sexism, discrimination, etc against women.

Did you forget upwards of 70% of the homeless population is male [5]? I don't
know about you, but I'd much rather live in poverty and have a minimum wage job
with no benefits than have no house or job and live on the streets. We could
even argue that women have it better then men when it comes to "true"
poverty.

To conclude that because women have less paying jobs (even though men have a
higher unemployment rate than women [6]), and a lower representation in higher
paying jobs is a direct repercussion of discrimination or sexism is... well,
unrealistic.


Domestic Violence

Although statistics show more women are victims of domestic violence than men,
that difference isn't very large at all, as about 40% of domestic violence
victims are male [7]. One difference between a guy hitting a girl and a girl
hitting a guy is when a girl hits a guy, people laugh. People don't take it
seriously. People brush it off and figure he can defend himself. And to be
clear, yes, they do laugh, as you can see in this social experiment on YouTube
[8]. People LAUGH when a girl is physically assaulting a
guy. Men are known to be physically stronger than women, and have a more
physically aggressive mentality, which is most likely the main reason more men
assault women than the other way around, but hey, this has nothing to do with
sexism. It's genetics. It's biology. It sucks, any crime sucks, but it is
completely irrational and unrealistic to conclude that there is a relationship
between male on female domestic violence and sexism/superiority.

One in six men under the age of 18 have been physically sexually abused [9]. I
know the following is a statistic from way up in Canada, but Canada and America
aren't very different when you think about it; Men are physically assaulted a
lot more than women - over three times more men are victims of aggravated
assault than women [10].

This is regarding domestic violence however, and although it is clear women
very well could be assaulted in a domestic relationship/environment more than
men are, you have not shown how feminism can help, and you have not proved that
this is even a case of sexism or a superiority complex or anything of that
sort. Statistics are great, however you have not provided a correlation between
domestic abuse and sexism.

And if feminism is not solely a "sexism/equal rights" movement, then
why doesn't feminism focus on all types of abuse instead of ones that
favor/victimize women more than men?


How feminism can help

I completely agree 100% that feminism was needed at a time, and did help
drastically with women's rights and safety, and it was completely necessary in
the 20th century. However modern feminism is truly pushing it.

I have been called a rapist by feminists (it doesn't matter if
"true" feminists don't consider these women "true"
feminists, what matters is "true" feminists still associate with
these "fake" feminists, or "feminazis," by sharing the same
name), because I've had sex with women who have had alcohol (while I have also
consumed alcohol). I have been called a supporter of rape because I
consider it wise to avoid dark alleys by yourself, wise to not dress extremely
provocatively, or stumble around alone while under the influence of
drugs/alcohol.

The term rape culture is basically asking for women to have more
rights than men; If a woman claims she was raped - she was. If a woman points
at a man for rape - he did. If a woman is asked any normal questions carried
out in crime investigations - these people are supporters of rape. Women
(feminists) are asking for special treatment and more rights than men.
When is it not appropriate for someone to ask what a man was wearing when he
was assaulted? Maybe he was walking down the wrong neighbourhood dressed all in
red, and he was assaulted by Crips. Maybe the way he was walking could be taken
as an intimidation tactic. Maybe his expensive clothing could be taken as
bragging about his money from selling drugs. Asking a victim of any crime facts
has nothing to do with supporting their misfortune. It is simple criminal
procedures. Also, you'd rather teach men not to rape than women to try and
avoid sick animals who actually do rape? Why not teach people not to murder,
steal, harass, extort, or commit any other illegal or hurtful activity? Because
you can't. Some people's brains develop much differently than others, which
ends up leading some people to harm others, either physically or mentally, or
both. Feminism denies this, and thinks that it would make more sense to tell
these people not to commit crimes than tell people to attempt to avoid these
types of people who we really can't do a hell of a lot about. Prisons exist.
The death penalty is still in use in some places. I'm sure knowing you'll rot
in prison for dozens of years if not your entire life if you rape a girl is a
better deterrent than feminists making blogs and ranting on tumblr (trying not
to sound like a jerk, sorry if it comes off that way, I'm passionate about this
subject). Here's an article about rape culture [10], which does have some
legitimate points, but also contains ridiculous things such as, (I'm
paraphrasing) "you support rape if you like the song 'blurred
lines.' "

My arguments have been dismissed by feminists because I am a man, and do not
know what it's like to be a woman. It is clear feminism focuses more on women's
issues than true equality. It also victimizes women to a new extreme. You were
raped if you consumed any alcohol. You were raped if you did not give a definitive
“yes.” You were sexually harassed if a guy looked at you in a way you didn’t
like. And much more.



My main problem with feminism is it A.
Victimizes wR2;oR2;mR2;eR2;nR2; everyone. B. Separates the sexes. C. Breeds
plenty extremists and holds a lot of inconsiderate, disrespectful, misandrist
bigots. D. Categorizes men as rapists or supporters of rape, even if they
aren't, through terms such as rape
culture.

Thanks, I'm looking forward to a great next round, and I hope you can address most, if not all, of my points.


[1] http://www.census.gov...

[2] http://www.census.gov...

[3] http://news.discovery.com...

[4] http://kff.org...

[5] http://www.nationalhomeless.org...

[6] http://www.bls.gov...

[7] http://www.theguardian.com...

[8] (See two videos)

[9] https://1in6.org...

[10] http://everydayfeminism.com...
Debate Round No. 2
kasmic

Pro

That was a very well written rebuttal. I could not help but laugh when I read “My arguments have been dismissed by feminists because I am a man, and do not know what it's like to be a woman.” I assure you I will not follow suite, as I am also a man who does not know what it is like to be a women… ha ha! I get just as amusing responses when I, as a man, publically identify as a feminist. Alright, lets get to rebuttals.

Economic Injustice:

Con says “I also, for the life of me, could not find any statistics showing pay between men and women based on same job, same work experience, same age, and same education. I did however find a census. pdf that showed there is a 23% difference between men and women for the most part, but this has nothing to do with specific jobs”

First, I would also like to note that con confirms my stat of a 23% difference when you compare all full time men and women. That is the same as 77 cents on the dollar. It took me a great deal of time to find the stats that I shared last round. However, I specifically included examples of men and women who had the same job title specifically to address this issue. While the data is not comprehensive enough to take into account work experience, age, and education, it does take into account job title and gender. In every case it shows quite the disparity. Even with all the other variables absent, looking at job title and gender gives a good indication that gender has something to do with it.

Con asks “why is it when as soon as a man gets paid more than a woman, everyone blames sexism and says there's no possible way a male can be paid more than a female other than blatant sexism?”

This is a great question, but the answer is simple. As gender being a large commonality and because the disparity is so large, as well as generally true, it seems to imply gender as, at most the reason for, and at least, part of why the gap exists. Of course there are going to be cases where an individual man is better qualified and therefore worth paying more for a job than a women. However, stats show this pay gap to be the case across the board. Indicating again that gender at least is an indicator if not the cause entirely.

Con says “Would it be possible women just generally don't excel as much as men do in jobs such as engineering or mathematics or technology, and excel more in jobs geared toward "natural female" jobs, such as child care, or jobs that require a personable personality?”

A study that compared men and women’s cognitive capability concluded that in math “the researchers found no large overall differences between boys and girls in math performance. “ (1) this study goes on to show that if anything “165 studies revealed a female advantage so slight as to be meaningless,” as far as verbal skills.

Con says “Men handle lack of sleep better than women do.”

Not that my experience is an all encompassing one, however I have been hired at 8 different companies, not once was I ever asked how well I handle a lack of sleep. I do not buy the thought that men dealing with a lack of sleep better really impacts their value in the work force, though if my opponent wishes to elaborate this point, so be it.

Con says “On average, women don't have as well paying jobs or as well "respected" jobs as men? I can agree with that. However you would need to prove that this is directly related to blatant sexism, discrimination, etc against women.”

Again I would just point out that the stats and information I provided did specifically compare those who had the same job title and gender. Unless con has a definitive reason to discount the sources I used, the pay gap by gender is pretty well supported.

Con says “Did you forget upwards of 70% of the homeless population is male.”

I confess I was unaware of that stat, and at first glance seems to undermine my argument about women and poverty. However, the number of the homeless is not comparable to the number of people who live in poverty. 600,000 homeless(2), vs 45.3 million in poverty.(3) When you apply the percentages we are comparing 420,000 men to 31.7 million women. It is like comparing suicide deaths to heart disease. Which has the bigger impact on society? The numbers hardly compare.

Clearly the pay gap is empirically evident and as such is indisputable. Just as evident is that poverty affects women significantly more so than men. It can then be concluded that men and women do not have an equal rights or opportunity in the U.S. economy.

Domestic violence:

In watching cons first video, it becomes apparent that while people did not take women abusing men very seriously, this is largely because people did not view female aggression, as the lady concluded “ as not very important, not very deadly, nothing really to react to.” Rather than supporting my opponent’s argument, this really supports the idea that women are not taken as seriously as men. It serves as empirical evidence to all who watch that women are not taken as seriously or treaty equally.

Con says “Statistics are great, however you have not provided a correlation between domestic abuse and sexism.”

Like the pay gap, the huge disparity between the numbers when you compare men and women is what makes it evident that it is a gender issue.

How Feminism can help:

Con says “I completely agree 100% that feminism was needed at a time, and did help drastically with women's rights and safety, and it was completely necessary in the 20th century."

Con says “it doesn't matter if "true" feminists don't consider these women "true" feminists, what matters is "true" feminists still associate with these "fake" feminists, or "feminazis," by sharing the same name”

It does make a difference, though I would not argue that they are not true feminist, I can easily argue that the extreme view you have encountered in not the general view. Much like the KKK is Christian, but nobody looks at the KKK to get a good idea of Christianity. Muslim terrorists may be followers of Islam, but clearly the fast majority of Musliums have taken issue with how the “extremist” has portrayed the religion.

in reference to your comment “you support rape if you like the song 'blurred lines." I would not assume that every “feminist” you meet is well educated, intelligent, etc… again it is like when a Christian parent won’t let their kids read Harry Potter because of witch craft. I would say there are crazies in every group. (I am so sorry if offended someone with that.) It does not however define the whole group.


All in all feminism is about equal treatment of the sexes. That is what is has been traditionally, that is what it is today, and likely what it will continue to be. Fringe groups do exist, and they do cause damage. This damage though is a blip in the big picture as feminism is on balance, beneficial to the modern United States.

Conclusion:

The economic disparity stands, as the numbers don’t lie. The comparison between the homeless and poverty falls as it is overwhelmed by sheer numbers. This is also true of domestic abuse. Cons video shows that society does not treat women equally. Fringe groups do not steer the message and stupid statements do not define a group. On balance modern Feminism is beneficial to the modern United States.



(As a side note, against my greater judgement, I am posting this very late at night. I hope my argument seems as coherent to me in the morning as it does right now LOL! I’m not as good at staying up late as I used to be.)

(1) http://www.apa.org...
(2) http://thinkprogress.org...
(3)
https://www.google.com...


Mister_Man

Con

Thank you! I'm sure plenty of people from every group have those types of people who shut you down before you can even present an argument. I'm kind of wishing this was 5 rounds now, as this is fun.


Economic Injustice

There is a huge difference between 77 cents to the dollar and a 23% earnings difference between men and women.

77 cents to the dollar implies women are paid 77 cents when a man is paid one dollar for the same job. This is not the case, and a site giving an "example" with no sources to back it up doesn't quite cut it, unfortunately.

A 23% earnings difference between males and females implies the total earnings for men would be (for example) $100,000 a year (because of the types of job men pursue), whereas the total earnings for women would be $77,000 a year (also due to the types of jobs they pursue).

I am not denying there is a difference in average income, but this is quickly shown to be anything but a patriarchy, or sexism, or discrimination, or any sort of negative bias against women, simply by looking at the types of jobs women have, and the types of jobs men have. Are men more qualified to work hard labour jobs due to their physique and willingness to push themselves and their muscles? It would be fair to say so, and it just happens jobs that require brute strength also pay more, due to how demanding this line of work is. Are women more qualified to work in childcare, due to their instinctive "motherly" nature and willingness to look after children. Unfortunately in a lot of cases, child care doesn't pay a hell of a lot. Although I'm familiar with some day cares who earn upwards of $800/child/month, it does take at least a year of schooling to work with them.

So right away, we see that men earn more on average due to the types of jobs they pursue. So why is it women aren't represented enough in higher up, CEO positions, or politically? Well, quoting the Guardian, "A 2006 survey found that while 80% of women felt underpaid, two-thirds had never asked for more money" [1]. Now the article goes on to say it's stressful for a woman to ask for more money due to the "pay gap," but wait, back up - Women won't ask for more money because... they aren't getting as much money? It's stressful as hell asking for a raise, I've asked for a couple, and I remember how incredibly nervous I was. This has nothing to do with it being a "women's issue" being stressed while asking for a raise, it's an all around issue. Asking for more money - no matter who you are - can be very stressful. So now that that's out of the way, we have to figure out why women don't ask for raises or promotions as much as men. Without doing research, I came up with a hypothesis (judging by how my female friends and colleagues act in comparison to their male counterparts) that women feel the need to "complete" their current job, or gain as much knowledge as possible in their current job before attempting to advance to a higher up position, whereas men tend to ask right off the bat for a promotion.

On a side note - my very first job was at a four star restaurant, and I started as a bus boy, or busser (for the gender-neutral people, lol) and within the first month of working there, I told the GM I'm working at becoming a manager at this restaurant and I want him to know that I'm willing to do what it takes to advance to this position. Yes, it was nerve racking, but it felt natural to ask for a position like this right off the bat, knowing full well I'm not even 2/3 familiar with my current position yet. The one girl who was a busser continued until she was asked to move up, as she said she was comfortable bussing and didn't "feel the need" to move around in the company. Yes, this could have been an isolated situation, but wait! Here's an article to back my "hypothesis" up with [2].

So what have we found out?

Women tend to work jobs that are more fit for their "gender traits," mostly child care, which unfortunately doesn't pay as much.

Women tend to not ask for promotions or raises as much as men.

Unfortunately, neither of these is definitive proof that the gap exists within the same job, between a male and female of equally qualified characteristics.

This gap is anything but across the board [3], and as you can see - women (on average) are paid more than men for a lot of jobs. Some people are able to perform better for certain jobs, and it happens that the majority of one gender usually performs better for most types of jobs.

I just found out (I may be out of the tennis loop...) that women earn as much as men do in Tennis. ...Makes sense, right? ...Well no, it doesn't. Not at all. Women play the best of three, while men play the best of five. Right off the bat, men work longer. This also means less time for ad revenue, and statistics show that less people watch women's tennis than mens [4]. So let's see if this is fair: Women work less, generate less views, less ad revenue, yet they get paid the same as their male counterparts? Of course you could argue that feminism is trying to abolish this unjust payment, but hey... of course it isn't. Feminism does what's best for women, and if men happen to benefit, these benefits are plastered all over as "YES, MEN BENEFIT FROM FEMINISM TOO!" - Even though it was a simple product of feminism helping women.


Of course your company isn't going to ask how well you sleep or how you handle a lack of sleep - they could consider it simply because of your gender (hold on, let me continue), and the "idea" that men can handle a lack of sleep more than women goes to show that men could be considered more productive due to this idea. If you were an employer, would you prefer someone who got burnt out after 8 hours, or someone who is able to work 10+ hours without getting burnt out? Now this isn't necessarily "fair" per se, but it isn't discrimination based on gender. The employer is simply considering who would be the most appropriate candidate for the position he's offering.

The way I see it all is if an employer provides actual reasoning as to why he isn't paying a woman as much as a man, or vise versa, or hired a man over a woman, that's good enough. It's his call to make. Saying he's sexist because he feels the man is more fit for the job than a woman, with an actual reason other than "because he's a man," is absolutely ridiculous and is attempting to take all responsibility off the woman.

You bring up a good point regarding poverty and homelessness, so thank you. However I guess I may as well bring up Cancer related primarily for men and women. Approximately 30,000 men will die in 2014 from Prostate Cancer, and 40,000 women will die by the end of 2014 from Breast Cancer. In 2012, $265,000,000 was funded for Prostate Cancer research, whereas $600,000,000 was funded for Breast Cancer research [8]. These numbers just don't add up. Less than half is funded for Prostate Cancer, when Prostate Cancer deaths still make up 75% of Breast Cancer deaths. So let's put the poverty levels aside, and look at the general populations' view on deadly cancer for each gender. You see Breast Cancer ribbons everywhere, NFL teams wear pink to support Breast Cancer, you can't deny the fact that Breast Cancer is funded much more than Prostate Cancer, and it's much more involved with the media, even though it only affects a slightly larger amount of women than Prostate Cancer does men.

The only thing regarding the pay gap I can agree with you on is that men do get paid more than women in general. An employer that gives a valid reason as to why he pays a male less than another male holds the same validity when he gives a reason as to why he pays a female less than a male, or vise versa. Poverty affecting women doesn't have anything to do with opportunity or equal rights, as I've proved that women don't ask for as much as men, and generally don't commit to the same high-paying jobs as men do.


Domestic Violence

I thought you would bring that up, and the only real thing I have to say about this is equality. They don't take the woman beating the man seriously, just like they don't take the man being beaten by the woman seriously. Both are equally negatively effected.

A gender issue is not an equality issue. Women choose lesser-paying jobs, and choose not to advance as much as men.

The difference between Christianity and the KKK is there's a clear difference between the two. Feminism and "feminazis" - not so much, in regards to social media attention and coverage. I've encountered, personally, more women who identify as feminists that are rude, disrespectful, hate men, and want female superiority than "true" feminists.


Conclusion

I'm all for equal treatment, however I don't believe we have any reason to think we aren't treated equally. Because some people have it worse than others does not mean they weren't given the same opportunities as their counterparts. If feminists, for example, changed the name of their group to "egalitarianism," it would get rid of the extremists and erase that blip entirely.

Numbers are numbers. What are the reasons behind these numbers? Discrimination? Sexism? Or simple "poor" choice on behalf of the victims? My video shows both men and women are treated poorly.



Hope you got a good sleep!




[1] http://www.theguardian.com...

[2] http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu...

[3] http://www.news.com.au...

[4] http://www.heraldsun.com.au...

[5] http://www.cancer.org...

[6] http://www.cancer.org...

[7] http://www.cancer.gov...

[8] http://www.cancer.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
kasmic

Pro

Thanks for your patience, I had a wonderful debate free, restful weekend!

Rebuttals:

Economic Injustice

Con says “There is a huge difference between 77 cents to the dollar and a 23% earnings difference between men and women.”

77/100 is 77%. Which is a 23% difference to 100%. This is basic math. 77 cents to a dollar is exactly a 23% difference. This means that a 23% difference in pay would be 77 cents on the dollar.

Con says “I am not denying there is a difference in average income, but this is quickly shown to be anything but a patriarchy, or sexism, or discrimination, or any sort of negative bias against women, simply by looking at the types of jobs women have, and the types of jobs men have.”

Again I have provided empirical evidence in specific job fields of this pay gap, (Men and Women who have the same job) to which Con says “a site giving an "example" with no sources to back it up doesn't quite cut it, unfortunately.”

The statistics on the site are sourced from the 2011 Census Bureau. (1) As the numbers are as well sourced as any statistic it would behoove con to accept the fact that the pay gap is obviously and observably connected with gender.

Con argues “that women earn as much as men do in Tennis. ...Makes sense, right? ...Well no, it doesn't. Not at all. Women play the best of three, while men play the best of five. Right off the bat, men work longer.”

As a tennis player I can assure you that playing fewer rounds at the match does not in any way prove that men work longer. The bulk of the work done by professional athletes is not done during the matches, it is the months of training to get there. I am stunned that con would bring sports in as an example. Here is an article that shows the difference for men and women basketball players. (2) As you can see Women basketball players make on average $72,000 annually, while men average 5.15 million a year.(3) This is a stunning difference.

I do agree with con that women’s sports “generate less views, less ad revenue,” The reasons for this have nothing to do with how much work is being done. Yet again, Con has provided an example of how our society does not treat women equally with men. Less views are a result of people not taking female professional athletes as serious as their male counter parts. Less views does equal less revenue. All a result of society not treating women and men equally.

Con says “The way I see it all is if an employer provides actual reasoning as to why he isn't paying a woman as much as a man, or vise versa, or hired a man over a woman, that's good enough. It's his call to make. Saying he's sexist because he feels the man is more fit for the job than a woman, with an actual reason other than "because he's a man," is absolutely ridiculous and is attempting to take all responsibility off the woman.”

I have not argued that an employer should provide reasons for why a women or man may be preferred. In fact I have not argued that certain careers that are male or female dominated should not be. I have argued that when men and women do work in the same field, for the same work that men, on balance, are paid much more. Again, this is empirically evident by my sited sources, and is not equal treatment.

Con provides stats based on various cancers that affect men and women. He shows that Breast Cancer receives significantly more charity than prostate cancer. Ironically, this is another example that our society views women as more of a “charity case” then men. I do not mean to encourage people to stop donated, in fact I hope everyone finds a way to charitable donate to any good cause. However, this example does reflect the idea that society see’s women as in need of more charity then men. This is a perfect example of unequal treatment. Clearly this unequal treatment is deeply rooted in our society.

I will conclude this argument as I did in round two. Clearly the pay gap is empirically evident and as such is indisputable. Just as evident is that poverty affects women significantly more so than men. It can then be concluded that men and women do not have an equal rights or opportunity in the U.S. economy.

Domestic Violence

Con says “Both (men and women) are equally negatively effected.”

Just because both are negatively effected does not mean equally. Women are not taken seriously as abusers. Women are not taken seriously as professionals, Generally Women are not taken as seriously as men as people.

I agree that Men are also negatively affected. This is largely due to the deep rooted sexism of our society treating women as children that need to be taken care of, obviously this puts an excessive burden on men to provide such support. This is why Feminism is “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities”

Other arguments:

Cons says “The difference between Christianity and the KKK is there's a clear difference between the two. Feminism and "feminazis" - not so much, in regards to social media attention and coverage. I've encountered, personally, more women who identify as feminists that are rude, disrespectful, hate men, and want female superiority than "true" feminists.”

The difference between Christianity and the KKK is now clear…. It was not always so. Likewise with Feminism and Limbaugh’s so called “feminazis.” The extreme of any group are often the most obnoxiously vocal.

Con says “I'm all for equal treatment, however I don't believe we have any reason to think we aren't treated equally.”

It is empirically evident that this unequal treatment is present is society. As I have shown.

Con says “Numbers are numbers. What are the reasons behind these numbers? Discrimination? Sexism? Or simple "poor" choice on behalf of the victims? My video shows both men and women are treated poorly.”

I agree numbers are numbers. However, to conclude that Women on balance are paid less, treated inferior, and not taken as seriously as men as a result of “poor” choices, is to say that women generally make poorer choices than men. This is not true, no such claim could be substantiated. The video does show that both are treated poorly, and specifically that women are not taken seriously. That is why feminism is about equality. Women’s issues do create issues for men.

Closing Statements:

First I would like to thank Mister_Man for being a fantastic contender and a good sport.

As we did not have much room to talk about the issues that are created for men due to the unequal treatment of women, or to address issues men face in our society, I will add a link to a video of a feminist addressing both men’s and women’s issues. (4) This is not intended to be a new argument, nor do I expect Con to refute the content. I just wanted to include it for those reading who are interested in hearing more on the topic.

I will conclude as I did in round two. Men and women do not currently have equal rights and opportunities. This is empirically evident by the stats that I have provided. Women are not paid equally, or afforded the same opportunity in the U.S. economy. Women are affected significantly more than men by domestic violence, as this has become a common issue (1 in 4) it limits the opportunity and rights of women in a way that does not generally affect men.

Feminism has been, and will continue to be a force for good in the U.S. as it brings to light these injustices and lobbies for change.

Therefore we are lead to conclude that “on balance modern Feminism is beneficial to the modern United States.”

Thanks for reading and vote pro!

(1) http://www.aauw.org...
(2) http://www.blackenterprise.com...
(3) https://www.google.com...
(4)



Mister_Man

Con

Well thanks for getting some rest I guess, haha.

Economic Justice

I understand the mathematics, don't worry. My point is that women do earn less than men in general, but that's in general. There are multiple reasons as to why they do, including experience, education levels, hours of work (which I will get back to later), time off, and much more.

Your stats show women earn less than men in general for these jobs. They don't show why. Because one gender earns less than the other does not mean that gender is discriminated against, or is a result of sexism, meaning feminism has no case, and no real reason for tackling this issue.

Here's something to consider - The general wage gap between men and women completely disappears when certain factors are taken into consideration [1]. Surveys administered to students in the late 70's and then again to the same students 30 years later show women chose less demanding jobs, generally had less experience (about two years) than men, worked more part-time work than men by nearly 10%, cared for children (more than men) leading to less work time & experience, and several other smaller factors. Taken from the site I'm quoting - "84.3 percent of the total wage gap can be explained by largely innocuous, non-discriminatory factors that have more to do with career and life choices than employers’ prejudices."

So yes, women earn less money than men in general. However this has nothing to do with discrimination, and after taking into consideration where women work, how often they work, their experience, work ethics, performance, and time off, the wage gap disappears.

Sports

I played tennis for several years also, and I agree to an extent regarding time worked. However, professional sports has very little to do with hours worked (I brought up the hours worked regarding tennis players because you can actually watch men play 5 rounds, while women play 3, yet they are paid the same), and more to do with how popular they, their team, or their sport is. More (much more) people watch men's basketball, where not nearly as much watch women's basketball. This means there are much more ads viewed, and more revenue generated from men's basketball than women's, leading to the men being paid more. This is supply and demand - not sexism, not discrimination, it's the general public generating ad revenue more for the men than the women. Unfortunate for the women, sure, but how are they supposed to be getting paid the same as the men when their sponsors and networks hardly get anywhere close to as much as the men's networks and sponsors do?

No. Just no. This is not "pfft, silly women," this is regarding how exciting one game is to watch over the other. What do you want to do? Force everyone to change their personal opinions on what is exciting for them or not? Once again, this is not discrimination, it's an entertainment value, something feminism can not, will not, and should not "change," as this would be... well, going around and telling people to literally think differently. Men's basketball is more fast-paced than women's, it makes sense that people would prefer to watch that. You're saying that we should not have any preference as to what we consider to be more exciting to watch...? That is completely unreasonable, unrealistic, and it's just pretty much denying human emotion. This is why I don't like feminism and consider it completely unnecessary.

Men being paid more in the same field of work is nothing but a statistic. Like I said earlier, when you take into consideration of why they are paid more, the gap disappears. It would actually be unequal to pay men and women the same if the employer finds the man to be doing better work than the woman. Affirmative action falls into this category, but I'll leave that for another time. "Equal treatment" would imply "equal work." Please, provide a reliable source showing how women with the same education, experience and performance levels, to list a few variables, are paid less than men doing the exact same job. You have shown how women in general earn less than men... emphasis on earn... but this is unrelated to any type of discrimination or unjust/unfair treatment toward one sex or the other.

The reason Breast Cancer research is funded so much is because of advertisement. Everywhere is plastered with "raise awareness and fund breast cancer research!" - This is not people viewing women as inferior and in need of more treatment. Much like professional sports, this is "unequal" because there are more ads associated with this money-making program. I could say men earn more than women because people feel men need more money to sustain a happier lifestyle, therefore this is an unjust treatment toward men and people feel men are inferior which is why they are paid more. You could really say anything negative about something good... Pizza tastes horrible because Pizza Hut doesn't care about my taste buds! That's discrimination! ...You're calling literally getting more money for a cause dedicated to helping women practically 'discrimination.'


The pay gap exists, men earn more than women... this is a result of more hours put in, harder jobs worked, less time taken off, and much more. This has nothing to do with discrimination, and therefore, nothing to do with feminism. Because one group of people does better than another does not mean that group has it easier, is offered more, is given more, is treated better, or has more rights than the other group. Therefore, feminism is not needed at all, as it is evident that women and men make different choices, leading to different career paths and pay rates, showing perfectly well that neither is unjustly treated or discriminated or "favoured" over the other.

Domestic Violence

You'd need to provide example as how women are not taken as seriously. And say you're right, they aren't - is this unfair discrimination? Nope. Women are generally weaker, not as strong, not as physically fit or capable as men, so when Average Joe sees a woman beating a man, he can "safely" assume he can defend himself perfectly well. Although I disagree with this mindset, it isn't because "hurr wumen sux," it's most likely because of our different body types and general activities of men and women.

Men and women having equal rights and opportunities has nothing to do with how society views either. Men tend to be stronger than women, more reason for men to protect women. It's biology, and feminism is trying to deny what is hardwired into our systems. But hey, women are "catered to," (so you say), and men are pressured to provide support for women... each are equally treated "poorly," so we are in fact treated equally. Women are given the same opportunities and rights as men, it's the fact that they chose not to actually take anyone up on these opportunities that makes feminism think it has a just cause (great game by the way, check it out for ps3).

Other stuff

I agree, it's unfortunate that the extremists are much more vocal, however I don't see why feminists can't call themselves egalitarians, so they aren't associated with "feminazis" nearly as much. That would make a lot of sense.

Unequal treatment =/= different choices between the sexes.

A 2009 study shows that women do, in fact, make "different" choices than men, leading to different career paths, less earning, etc [2]. Consider it "poor" choices if you wish, but men and women sure don't make the same choices. And to be clear, men aren't treated "fairly" when it comes to men doing "female" activities" just like women aren't when it comes to doing "male" activities. America and Canada isn't hellbent on telling women what they can and can't do, and if anything, they're hellbent on telling society as a whole what they can and can't do, even if it doesn't affect anyone at all.

Closers

Well thank you too, Kasmic, it's been a pleasure debating feminism with someone who doesn't insult me and actually has reliable sources and statistics we can work with! So thanks.

When I saw this video the day it came out I couldn't help but wonder why Emma Watson forgot about men. She mentions men in the first minute and says feminism isn't just a women's movement... but she hardly reference men anywhere else in her speech. The one thing that irritated me is the fact that she says "women everywhere, in every country are still not treated equally..." she fails to mention men, and yet again, feminism is shown (even by the "feminism isn't ONLY for women girl") to be only for women. Now I'm not saying this is true, but feminists fail (a lot of the time) to mention any men's problems. Thanks for sharing that video though, Emma is really trying to make it an equality movement instead of a "women's rights" movement - as it should be... however I still believe we are treated equally.

For women to be treated as unequal to men, they have to be receiving different treatment than men, while acting equal to them.

You have failed to provide reasonable examples of women being paid less due purely to discrimination. Yes, your sources are reliable, and yes, your sources do say women earn less than men, however I have provided the reasoning to this, and it is more than reasonable.

Domestic violence is not unequal treatment of women. More women extort men out of child care than guys do - this doesn't mean men are unequal to women or vise versa. It's a bad thing that happens to some people.

Feminism was needed at a time. Thanks to feminism, we now have equal rights. However we no longer need to fight for something we already have in America.

The wage gap has been shown to not be due to discrimination, women choosing different careers than men is not a lack of opportunity, and women gaining more support than men is not implied inferiority.

Feminism is an outdated, unnecessary cause in America.

Thanks again for a good debate!


[1] http://www.ncpa.org...

[2] http://www.consad.com...
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
I'm glad you found the RFD so helpful, and as is the case with kasmic, I'm always happy to vote on future debates. Just send me a message or post on my profile.
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
Well, thanks a lot for your input, whiteflame... you really helped, a lot. I appreciate your words to both of us and your reasoning regarding your votes.

I didn't think I'd actually enjoy reading someone else's ideas in the comments about my own debate, but I did, and thanks for that. And thanks for your input and advice, as well.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD (Pt. 1)

This debate was interesting, but both debaters seem to be making arguments that are mainly focused on separate topics. Pro seems to want to argue this topic:

"On balance, modern women are disadvantaged as compared with men in the United States."

Whereas Con seems to want to argue this topic:

"On balance, feminism is the most appropriate system for creating equal rights structures in the modern United States."

As such, much of the argumentation misses the central issues that accompany this topic, specifically what feminism does and doesn't do, and how capable it is of addressing many of the modern problems faced by a society where there are disparities based on the physical sex of the individual.

Let me explain further. Pro's logic seems to follow this syllogism:

P1: Women are disadvantaged in modern society
P2: Feminism fights against injustice
P3: Feminism has fought and won battles against injustice
C: Feminism is beneficial in modern society

That sounds logical, but there's a reason I don't do syllogisms " they just seem to miss some integral links. If I buy all 3 of the premises, I may still not buy the conclusion. Just because women are disadvantaged doesn't mean that the removal of that disadvantage is beneficial (though that might seem obviously good). Just because feminists fight injustice and have been successful on other issues doesn't mean they can effectively eliminate these disadvantages in modern society. Especially the latter issue creates a problem here. Pro essentially assumes that past success guarantees or at least improves the chances of current success, but never gets around to explaining how the discrepancies can be solved.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 2)

That's not to say that Con's logic is especially good. He seems to often get sidetracked and go off on a tear on issues he feels show a lack of equality towards men, though all of this seems really tangential to the debate. The fact that feminism has failed to counterbalance in areas where women are given preference doesn't make feminism harmful, it just shows that feminism isn't doing the maximal good it could do. So when I see that prostate cancer is getting less money than breast cancer by a very wide margin, that makes me think "that's a shame," but tells me nothing about feminists. On a side note, I'm not sure why Pro took this on, especially since this is a more inherent problem of inequity in perception, and not something that appears to be capable of being addressed by feminist groups.

The main harm presented by Con is that of the group he calls "feminazis," which seemed slightly off topic as well, though Pro accepts it as though it is a part of the topic, albeit a small one in his estimation. I buy that there's some possible harm coming from a group that's overly PC and extreme in their attitudes, though Con really just produces these examples in a long-ish rant without any support or link to actual impacts (why should I care that these people are being extreme? Does it harm investigations? Result in more rapes? If so, there should be actual evidence of these, yet I see none of it). That leaves Con with a small offensive impact, and it leaves me having to compare that with any plausible impact coming from Pro.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 3)

On that end, it's iffy. I can see some pay-based disadvantage for women, despite Con's attempts to mitigate it into oblivion. I buy that, at the very least, in some jobs there is a disparity. Con doesn't provide any examples of instances where women earn more than men, and there's disagreement between the overall trends seen in the censuses, but Pro is the only one to present a job-by-job comparison. Con's contention that this is the result of other factors mitigates this to a large extent as these explanations are better warranted, but they still can't account for the consistent differences within the same professions, nor for the remainder that appears in Con's calculations in R4, which means Pro is still garnering that there's some harm here. Even with the sports example, it just doesn't seem like Con's explanations account for everything. I also buy that women are more often the victims of domestic violence. Con might have made the argument that domestic violence towards men goes under-reported in an attempt by men to maintain their machismo, but as I don't see that argument, and as much of Con's response is besides the fact, I still see this as a source of disparity.

But this is where that syllogistic issue comes back to bite him. I don't see the methodology by which feminism solves for any of these problems. From an idealistic perspective, sure, we should seek less disadvantage. But how do we ensure that there's less disadvantage? Pro doesn't say. Con tells me that employers should be able to set wages however they wish, and I don't see a response from Pro. That means that the wage issue isn't solved, no matter how hard feminists lobby, as the more important issue is employer rights. I'm given no solution with regards to the domestic abuse issue, and I can't see one being obvious.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 4)

So, what does this lead me to? I basically don't see any likely benefit to Pro's case. Just throwing feminism at inequality problems isn't enough, I need to see why feminism is an appropriate tool for change. Con's arguments that feminism could work better as an egalitarian movement really don't do anything to Pro's case, but they do showcase some of the limitations of feminism as a movement. I'm given no reason, beyond some past examples of success in markedly different areas, that feminism is a successful movement in today's world, and could be successful in this regard. Meanwhile, though it might be a small issue, I am given something of a harm from Con. It's not much, and Con fails to impact it out to the point that I can see a sizable harm of any sort, but feminazis are, at least, something of a concern in today's society, and degrade the public conversation. Hence, as that's the only firmly established reality in the debate, I have to vote Con.

Finally, a couple of notes:

To Pro: wield your definition like a club. When Con starts mentioning all of these extreme examples of "feminism," note that they don't fit your provided definition. Instead, you accept the onus that comes with them.

To Con: you make an awful lot of assertions without support, especially with regards to your personal views of the feminist movement. That nearly cost you the debate, since it's difficult to regard your feminazi point as very serious when I don't see much support for it being a problem in modern society beyond your assertions that people are upset.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Pt. 5)

To both sides: it's important to distinguish gender and sex. Female and male are not genders, they are sexes. As such, all the references to gender miss the mark. And this actually could have become a bigger issue in the debate. The differences in the ways that girls and boys are treated as they grow up could be the reasons behind Con's analysis of what makes women and men different in the workplace. In fact, in terms of STEM fields especially, there's been a lot of research on this. Pro could have used this quite effectively if he had argued that feminists support a more gender neutral learning environment where girls and boys are exposed to the same things and allowed to choose what they want to do instead of letting society decide for them.
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
Also, thank you so much for not saying "men and women are equal" anywhere. Way too many supporters of feminism claim men and women "are equal," instead of "should have equal rights." So thanks for that.
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
The end there is supposed to say "It victimizes -women- everyone." I must have had a strange format on Word.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
kasmicMister_ManTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Good round on both sides. I'm mainly voting on the fact that Mister_Man dropped that feminism is about ending sexism--which applies to both sexes. That means that every example that Mister_Man gives about how there is sexism against men is another reason to think that the US needs feminism, and opposed to the idea that "we do have equal opportunities." Furthermore, advocating against domestic violence against women does not increase domestic violence against men--in this case advocacy for women doesn't stop advocacy against men, another boon to feminism. Remember--equality for gender means equality for men. Mister_Mans's arguments for the need to end sexism against men simply feel into the feminist advocacy. An aside: Mr. Man did his homeless math wrong. Con need to include homeless families as well as single, in which case 47% of total homeless is female compared to 53% male, according to his source. It seems like inequality is occurring in different places for different sexes. Pro
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
kasmicMister_ManTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a fairly close debate, and I can see the merit to awarding both sides the point here. The only really substantive point of contention between the two sides was differences in wages, and PRO shows that feminist principles are necessary to mitigate that disparity. CON's argument's about women making different choices, and the like, don't stand up under scrutiny, although in the absence of that point he probably would have taken the win. It's really hard to show that an ideology itself, however, is beneficial. Ideology is a way to frame certain choices in the pursuit of specific social objectives that advance principles inherent to specific ideologies, but ideology doesn't tell us what's good for society per se -it rather presents a lens through which to examine social issues.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
kasmicMister_ManTied
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: Interesting debate. For the sake of transparency, I am a feminist (albeit a male feminist), and I was asked to vote by Pro. I think this was actually a fairly close debate, and I think, by the end, the Domestic Violence point was a wash. I do think, however, that Pro established the existence of a gender-based, discriminatory pay gap. The issue is not so much a lack of opportunity, but more so that there is not equal pay for equal work, and that this issue is pervasive and significant. I also think it's a bit ridiculous to deride feminism as a movement for what a minority of feminazis do, as Con attempts. I think Con should that Feminism isn't has useful today as it has been in the past, but I think Pro still shows that it provides some utility (even if that's just promoting awareness of women's issues) in the status quo. That is sufficient, IMO, for Pro to meet his burden; thus, I vote Pro. Good debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
kasmicMister_ManTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Mister_Man had better grammar due to a few errors by Pro. Con also had more sources than pro thus is awarded the sources points. Pro made many convincing arguments when it came to the philosophy of feminism and how it helped the US while relying heavily on evidence which I tended to find to overpower Con's arguments. His arguments about discrimination was also a very important and key argument that Pro won so I have no choice but to give the argument points to Pro. Good and very close debate.
Vote Placed by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
kasmicMister_ManTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used the argument that feminism works on the same principles as it did in the women's rights movements of before, and provided evidence. This, I feel, is a well-supported argument. Con seemed to get sidetracked a lot, but I do commend him for doing his best to refute Pro's arguments and using better sources. Pro needs to work on his spelling a bit. I would have preferred for Pro to use specific evidence of the beneficial implementation of modern feminism (the act rather than the ideal), but I feel his evidence of discrimination and argument about the principles of feminism were both enough to sway me.
Vote Placed by Mr.Grace 2 years ago
Mr.Grace
kasmicMister_ManTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro relies too heavily on biased data. The reliable studies I've seen show that once accounting for educational differences, hours worked, and the specific duties of a job, the "wage gap" amounts to about 7%, which, as Con noted, can be accounted for the lack or will to negotiate higher wages.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
kasmicMister_ManTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.