Second-wave and third-wave feminism have, all in all, detrimentally affected the USA.
Debate Rounds (4)
The first round is for acceptance.
(Right now, this debate is impossible to accept. If you are interested in debating this topic, post in the comment section.)
 "Everything being taken into account" http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
 "obviously harmful; damaging" http://www.merriam-webster.com...
I gladly accept.
As much as I am disappointed to see the debate end before it begins, I do at least appreciate my opponent letting us know he has decided to drop out.
I considered posting arguments in support of Second and Third wave feminism just for the sake of it, but at this point I feel it would be a needless expenditure of energy and time on my part. Given that I was to take the con position, I was preparing to simply defend the position that second and third wave feminism have not caused more harm than good in the United States. It seems clear to me that the burden of proof was on Pro in this debate to demonstrate that they have been, all in all, detrimental to the country.
I will say that second wave feminism fought for, and gained, legal protections against gender based employment discrimination as well as equal pay for men and women. Third wave feminism, which admittedly is more nebulously defined due to its contemporary nature, has made gender based violence a central theme and aided in bringing that topic to the national dialogue. I have a difficult time seeing how either of these 'waves' can be seen as being "all in all" detrimental to the United States.
I was not coming here with the intention of claiming that the effects of feminism have been wholly good, and even less to defend the idea that ALL feminists are good. But to claim that second and third wave feminism have been "all in all" detrimental to the country was a rather large claim which obviously cannot be taken at face value without argument.
Unfortunately it seems as if we will not be hearing that argument.
Whatever my opponent's reasons for retiring from DDO may be, I wish him nothing but the best in the future.
InVinoVeritas forfeited this round.
This is becomming an all too familiar feeling on this site, unfortunately.
Feels a bit as if I'm fulfilling dinner reservations even though my date cancelled.
I will see you again in 72 hours, I suppose.
InVinoVeritas forfeited this round.
Here we are once again, dear reader.
Thank you for sticking with me through what is now my fourth debate to end in forfeits (out of only five, I might add).
I'm beginning to feel like someone is trying to tell me something here.
Well, on to the business at hand.
I believe that, if nothing else, I have clearly done a better job of presenting my position than Pro has.
In fact, Pro has made no attempt to argue anything at all.
Just imagine that this was the riveting debate it could have been.
Think of all the brilliant arguments that I made in this alternate reality where InVinoVeritas attempted to present his case.
Think of all the logical fallacies I pointed out, and how I was able to redirect his argument back to show that he was proving my case for me. Just think of the wonderful laughs you could have had with the sharp wit I used to cut through his faulty syllogisms.
I'm terribly sorry we couldn't experience that together, my dear readers.
Next time, I hope.
Thanks for reading.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tulle 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.