The Instigator
WilliamsP
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
andymcstab
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Sexism is still an issue in modern society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
andymcstab
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,227 times Debate No: 52324
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

WilliamsP

Pro

I firmly believe that sexism is still an issue in modern society. This is not limited to women only. Both men and women are subject to sexism and I wish to prove this. My opponent will argue the opposite stance. I wish to have a mature, rational debate and therefore I feel obligated to implement a few crucial rules:

1. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.
2. There will be no forfeiting.
3. Sources, if any, will be cited using the MLA format.

The debate will follow the structure below:

Round One: Acceptance only
Round Two: Main Arguments
Round Three: Rebuttals and Further Arguments
Round Four: Final Arguments and Further Rebuttal
Round Five: Final Rebuttals and Conclusion

I look forward to this debate.
andymcstab

Con

What the hell, I accept on one caveat: by "issue", pro refers to "a matter of public concern"(1), not merely a subject, statement or fact.

(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
WilliamsP

Pro

Introdution
I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for responding. I accept his definition of the word "issue" and I will now define another key term. "Sexism", in this context, is defined as "discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities;
especially, such discrimination directed against women."
This definition can be found on dictionary.com.

Main Argument
Contrary to popular belief, females are not the only victims of sexism. For example, divorce laws often favor women over men, stereotyping and assuming that women can care for a child better than a man can. This is not true in every case. According to CBS, "women still earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. For African-American and Hispanic women it's even lower: 64 and 54 cents, respectively." This cannot be ignored for this is absolutely hideous. Sexism is not only found within the law and the workforce, but it is also a part of daily life. When people say, 'Ladies first', they are stereotyping. They assume that women are weak and unable to wait. In my professional opinion, I believe that whoever is there gets to go first.

Sexism is not only reserved for males and females; transgenders are also subject to it.Huffington Post states "[f]ederal law bans employment discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age and disability. But sexual orientation and gender identity are not on this list, allowing employers to fire workers solely because they are transgender. Rebecca Juro, host of 'The Rebecca Juro Show,' was fired in 1997 immediately after telling her employer that she was in the process of transitioning from male to female." I urge you to further research this topic yourself and to be aware of the immense discrimination many people face.

Given these facts, how can anyone argue that sexism is not an issue? It is a matter of what is morally correct. We have an obligation to ensure that both men and women are granted the same rights and privileges and that we do not favor any gender over another.

MLA Citations
I used the sources below and common knowledge in order to write the above:

"Sexism." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. <http://dictionary.reference.com...;.

"Women Still Earn Less 50 Years after Equal Pay Act." CBSNews. CBS Interactive. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. <http://www.cbsnews.com...;.

Singh, Ishita. "Transgender Discrimination: I Was Fired For Transitioning From Man To Woman (VIDEO)." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 12 July 2013. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com...>.
andymcstab

Con

Thank-you Pro for his interesting opening statement.

Introduction
In this debate I will not be contending that women are paid equal amounts to men, or occupy the same number of top jobs as men. Instead, I will endeavor to rationalise why women aren't paid as much as men and show how so-called "sexism" is not problematic in todays society. Indeed, I will aim even to show how claims of sexism and laws ensuring so-called "equal opporunity", and pay, and so on, are actually detrimental to society.

Some facts I would like to establish before my opening argument:

1: Men have a higher peak IQ than woman. It is important to understand I am not speaking of average IQ, but peak IQ. That is, the highest mens IQ's tend to be higher than the highest womans IQ's. (1) This is why the vast majority of inventors, revolutionaries, composers, CEO's, presidents, scientists who make great discoveries, etc, are men.

2: Men are more physically capable than women. (don't need a source for a universally undisputed claim)
3: Women are better home-makers and child-rearers than men. The reason women tend to retain the children after divorce, is because they were the primary care-giver before divorce (2). Also, homemaker women are happier than full-time workers (3), and happy person is more productive (4)


Let us imagine a car..


The car has wheels - in the form of big cumbersome tyres, and a steering wheel. The steering wheel, used as a tyre, is clearly less productive than an actual tyre. A tyre, used as a steering wheel, is clearly less productive than an actual steering wheel.

It is not through some hate for steering wheels that I pay them less if they demand to be used as a tyre. It is not through some hate of tyres that I try and avoid using them as steering wheels.

The car - which I am making analogous to human society - needs steering wheels working as steering wheels, and tyres working as tyres, to function with maximum harmony, productivity and effeciency.

If it is demanded that steering wheels be used as tyres, and recieve the same pay as tyres when they are doing the job of a tyre (even though they work at reduced effeciency for a certain period every month), you are sabotaging the human car. Legislation against so-called "sexism", aimed at ensuring equal pay and opportunity, is nothing more than sabotage of human society and undermining of its functionality.

Men, having greater capacity for success in both academic and physical disciplines, naturally should hold the majority of top positions and earn the more money. Men however, to work effeciently, need the love, support, and regular feeding of a woman. He also needs someone who is emotionally and socially intelligent to raise his children, so that the next generation can continue working the human-car in optimal effeciency. Women benefit from the increased productivity of the man, who can bring home more food and more wealth for her to home-build with.

Again, we need tyres working as tyres, steering wheels working as steering wheels for the ultimate benefit of everyone.


If you were to look at tribal cultures...

..you would confess it would be absurd to send the ladies -complete with higher body fat and less muscle- out hunting, while the men stick at home knitting clothes and feeding the children. Tribal cultures aren't sexist, they simply have not been educated into retardation, or exposed to destructive political correctness. The women in these cultures, thinking clearly, are happy to be women, and fill the role of women. Only in our "because your worth it", culture which is obsessed with self-entitlement do you observe these spurious claims of "sexism".


Sources:

(1) http://www.psychologytoday.com...
http://listcrown.com...
http://www.iqtestexperts.com...

(2) http://www.divorcenet.com...
(3)http://sf.oxfordjournals.org...,
(4)http://www.theguardian.com...


Debate Round No. 2
WilliamsP

Pro

I would first like to thank my opponent for responding. Before refuting his points, however, I would like to remind him that he was supposed to use the MLA format for his citations. In the first round, I stated that "sources, if any, will be cited using the MLA format." My opponent has not done this. I would also like to point out that my opponent has mispelled a few words. I believe my opponent rushed his argument. I would also like to apologize for having mispelled a word in my previous argument. I will not make the same error again.

Rebuttals
I will now refute my opponent's points. My first rebuttal will regard my opponent's hideos analogy. I understand what he is trying to say, yet the analogy was not executed properly. My opponent has made irrelevant points and some of his points I will manage to refute. I would like to discuss my opponent's last paragraph now.

"[Y]ou would confess it would be absurd to send the ladies -complete with higher body fat and less muscle- out hunting, while the men stick at home knitting clothes and feeding the children. Tribal cultures aren't sexist, they simply have not been educated into retardation, or exposed to destructive political correctness. The women in these cultures, thinking clearly, are happy to be women, and fill the role of women. Only in our 'because your worth it', culture which is obsessed with self-entitlement do you observe these spurious claims of 'sexism'."

My opponent is not aware of some of the accomplishments and achievements of women. Thousands of years ago, it was women that created agriculture, thus revolutionizing the global economy forever. Women ensured the prosperity of nations; they helped heal wounded soldiers in warfare; they cared for their families in war and peace. This is not sexism; this is the role that women chose to take. It is not destiny for women to do this. When I spoke of sexism, I was referring to issues regarding economic opportunity and such issues. My opponent has not argued anything connected to these, which is unfortunate.

"Men have a higher peak IQ than wom[e]n. It is important to understand I am not speaking of average IQ, but peak IQ. That is, the highest mens IQ's tend to be higher than the highest womans IQ's. (1) This is why the vast majority of inventors, revolutionaries, composers, CEO's, presidents, scientists who make great discoveries, etc, are men."

This may be true. However, this is not in any sense connected to the topic of the debate. The topic of the debate is that sexism is still an issue in modern society. My adversary states things that are completely irrelevant to the topic and I urge to the voters to consider this. My opponent states that men have a higher peak IQ than women. What does this have to do with sexism? I hope my opponent can answer this question. How is this argument relevant to the topic?

My opponent's entire argument was irrelevant and irrational. My opponent wasted his time writing it.
I am aware that I did not cite any sources in this argument. I did not feel the need to; my opponent's arguments were irrelevant and I proved so. My opponent will need to take a different approach in order to win this debate.
andymcstab

Con

Thank-you very much to Pro for providing some objections, I look forward to working these through with you.

As this is now the first round of rebuttals I will respond to Pro's opening argument in point-by-point fashion, followed by his objections to my argument, and then summarise what was discussed.


The opening argument Pro puts forth to substantiate that sexism is a problem for society, is the following unsourced statement:

"Contrary to popular belief, females are not the only victims of sexism. For example, divorce laws often favor women over men, stereotyping and assuming that women can care for a child better than a man can. "

1: Pro has not shown how, if divorce laws did favour women, it should be a terrible problem for society.
2: Pro has not substantiated that divorce laws would be sexist, if they favour women.
3: As i have already argued and sourced (1), it is common for women to retain the child after a break up because it is they who were the primary care givers during the relationship. I will also add, the younger the child is the stronger the bond with the mother due to feeding, especially breast feeding. (2)
4: In the vast majority of cases then it is not descrimination and prejudice based on sex which leaves the child with the mother, but thought for the best interests of the child, founded on information and reason.

He follows up with:

"According to CBS, "women still earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. For African-American and Hispanic women it's even lower: 64 and 54 cents, respectively." This cannot be ignored for this is absolutely hideous. "

1: He declares that this gap is caused by sexism but makes no effort to show that it is.
2: He declares that the gap is "hideous" but makes no effort to describe why it is.
3: I have already argued strongly against wage gaps being indicative of sexism in my opening argument. Men have the capacity to be physically and mentally more productive. Their higher peak IQ affords them the top jobs, which often pay 10 fold the salary of a mere 'good' job, raising the average mens salary in completely non-linear fashion. I also argued that women are guaranteed to suffer impaired ability, atleast a couple of days each month, lowering their objective worth in the workplace.
4: It follows then that prejudice is not necessarily the causal factor behind any wage gap.
5: His inclusion of African-American and Hispanic women would be indicative of racism, not sexism, so is invalid.

His next opening argument for "sexism" being a culture-wide problem is:

"When people say, 'Ladies first', they are stereotyping. They assume that women are weak and unable to wait."

1: He doesn't source any data to show what people assume.
2: He doesn't show how big strong men holding a door open for visibly smaller, less strong women, would be a problem for society
3: He doesn't even show that holding a door open for a lady is sexism, as by his own definition sexism is "descrimination or devaluation". I failed to see how being thoughtful of the needs of women equates to either.

Finnaly, the coupe de grace:

"Sexism is not only reserved for males and females; transgenders are also subject to it."

1: Transgender is not a sex. Sex is strictly biological. Transgender refers to someone whose gender identity differs from their sex. (3)
2: The treatment of transgender folk, even if they were a sex, can be shown to be caused by a host of other factors such as religious beliefs.


Now his rebuttal....

.. He does not contend my analogy, designed to show that sexual preference for certain jobs is based on reason and the well-being of everybody, rather than sexism. It also showed that the casting of such preference as "sexism", and "hideous", is in-fact destructive to society.

He only takes issue with my accessory example of tribal culture, but he doesn't respond to it. He only makes unsourced statements about the accomplishments of women; "it was women that created agriculture". If it was, thats great.... but it has no bearing on the discussion which is that sexism exists and is problematic for our society.

"they helped heal wounded soldiers in warfare; they cared for their families in war and peace."

Exactly my point! They are better at caring for their families and healing wounded soldiers than men. Men are better at fighting and protecting the land than women. There is no sexism but a kind of symbiotic relationship.

" I was referring to issues regarding economic opportunity and such issues. My opponent has not argued anything connected to these, which is unfortunate. "

Well, I have argued in detail about these "issues". If a lady wants to go and compete with men for top jobs she is more than welcome, but any disparity in the average pay between men and women, or their respective employment rates in high-power positions has not been shown by Con to be a product of sexism. Men and women are employed and paid relative to their value. Men, having higher peak IQ, being stronger, and being incapable of suddenly having to disappear for months through pregnancy typically enjoy the higest paying jobs. They are employed and paid on merit rather than sexual prejudice or descrimination.

In response to information I provided concerning IQ:

"What does this have to do with sexism? How is this argument relevant to the topic?"

Because, as already stated, employment rates and average wages are respective of things other than sex, such as the capacity of the person to complete a job to the highest possible standard. That capacity is most often determined by IQ or strength. It might be men that get these jobs but it is not a product of prejudice or descrimination, but of merit and objective worth.


Summary


1: Pro has yet to provide any example of sexism even existing. That is, descrimination or devaluation based on a persons sex. I am sure examples exist but he is yet to touch on any. The examples he has given are explained by men having more merit or worth, rather than descrimination or devaluation against women, merely because they are women -sexism.
2: Pro has not provided any argument which shows sexism to be a problem for the society at-large.
3: Pro has failed to offer any rebuttal to my argument showing that enforced "equal opportunities" and pay would be destructive to society.
4: I must confess, I don't even know what "MLA FORMAT SOURCING" is, but I would like to remind voters that points for sources should be on the basis of reliability and relevence rather than formatting. I have not only provided more relevant and reliable sources (Pro's only sources are media publications), but also much greater quantity, providing multiple reliable sources for the most important statements.


(1) (2) http://www.divorcenet.com...
(3) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com..., https://www.glaad.org...
Debate Round No. 3
WilliamsP

Pro

Rebuttals
I would now like to grasp the opportunity to refute my opponent's claims and I will respond to each of his points clearly and strongly. Without further ado, I will now commence my refutations.

"Pro puts forth to substantiate that sexism is a problem for society, i[n] the following unsourced statement."

Not all claims need to have sources. Common knowledge and logic do not need to be sourced.

"1: Pro has not shown how, if divorce laws did favour women, it should be a terrible problem for society.
2: Pro has not substantiated that divorce laws would be sexist, if they favour women.
3: As i have already argued and sourced (1), it is common for women to retain the child after a break up because it is they who were the primary care givers during the relationship. I will also add, the younger the child is the stronger the bond with the mother due to feeding, especially breast feeding. (2)
4: In the vast majority of cases then it is not descrimination and prejudice based on sex which leaves the child with the mother, but thought for the best interests of the child, founded on information and reason."

I will now respond to each of the points above.

1. I believe it was implied that this is terrible for society.
2. The key word here is 'favoring'. Favoring a gender simply because of the gender is sexist.
3. If it were a very young child, I would understand the mother winning custody of the child. However, say it were a situation in which the child were a teen, you cannot immediately say that the mother is the best person to have custody of the child.
4. My opponent does not prove how and why mothers are the best caregivers for children. He does provide an argument for why women should have custody of their children, but he completely ignores the fathers. What happens to them?

"1: He declares that this gap is caused by sexism but makes no effort to show that it is.
2: He declares that the gap is "hideous" but makes no effort to describe why it is.
3: I have already argued strongly against wage gaps being indicative of sexism in my opening argument. Men have the capacity to be physically and mentally more productive. Their higher peak IQ affords them the top jobs, which often pay 10 fold the salary of a mere 'good' job, raising the average mens salary in completely non-linear fashion. I also argued that women are guaranteed to suffer impaired ability, at least a couple of days each month, lowering their objective worth in the workplace.
4: It follows then that prejudice is not necessarily the causal factor behind any wage gap.
5: His inclusion of African-American and Hispanic women would be indicative of racism, not sexism, so is invalid."

I will respond to the above points:

1. This is clearly sexism. I do not need to source anything for that particular statement. I have a counter-question: How is it NOT sexism?
2. My opponent clearly does not understand the seriousness of this.
3. I grant my opponent this.
4. The wage gap is clearly caused by sexism. Women, just like men, are capable of doing work and supporting a family. Why should they be treated differently then men? Why can't women and men get paid the same for the same job? This is clearly sexism.
5. I grant my opponent this.

"1: He doesn't source any data to show what people assume.
2: He doesn't show how big strong men holding a door open for visibly smaller, less strong women, would be a problem for society
3: He doesn't even show that holding a door open for a lady is sexism, as by his own definition sexism is "descrimination or devaluation". I failed to see how being thoughtful of the needs of women equates to either."

1. Things that are common knowledge to do need to be sourced.
2. There is a clear difference between sexism and manners. Holding a door open for a weaker woman is of course acceptable, but treating a woman as weaker when she is not is clearly sexism.
3. This has already been discussed.

"1: Transgender is not a sex. Sex is strictly biological. Transgender refers to someone whose gender identity differs from their sex. (3)
2: The treatment of transgender folk, even if they were a sex, can be shown to be caused by a host of other factors such as religious beliefs."

1. Some people are born as both genders. I was referring to those people as wel. Perhaps I used the wrong term.
2. Religion may be a factor, but sexism is as well.

"He does not contend my analogy, designed to show that sexual preference for certain jobs is based on reason and the well-being of everybody, rather than sexism. It also showed that the casting of such preference as 'sexism', and 'hideous', is in-fact destructive to society.

He only takes issue with my accessory example of tribal culture, but he doesn't respond to it. He only makesunsourced statements about the accomplishments of women; 'it was women that created agriculture'. If it was, thats great.... but it has no bearing on the discussion which is that sexism exists and is problematic for our society."

The above points are not to my liking. Honestly, Con's analogy made no sense to me and I would appreciate for him to please explain it thoroughly. And now I will take a few moments to discuss my opponent's tribal statement. In tribal cultures, society was different; laws were different; traditions were different; the people were different. During those times, it was expected for a man to hunt and a woman to care for the young. However, in modern society, this would be a large issue. If the woman CHOOSES to do so and the man CHOOSES to do so, that would be acceptable by all means. However, we cannot EXPECT the two genders to take these roles. It is their decision to make.

"1: Pro has yet to provide any example of sexism even existing. That is, descrimination or devaluation based on a persons sex. I am sure examples exist but he is yet to touch on any. The examples he has given are explained by men having more merit or worth, rather than descrimination or devaluation against women, merely because they are women -sexism."

I provided plenty of examples of sexism. The examples of sexism I provided regarded sexism because of gender simply.

"2: Pro has not provided any argument which shows sexism to be a problem for the society at-large."

My argument was a little weak, I grant my opponent this.

"3: Pro has failed to offer any rebuttal to my argument showing that enforced "equal opportunities" and pay would be destructive to society."

If anyone failed, it was my opponent. His main argument was completely irrelevant and made no sense. He was not focusing on the topic of the debate, yet I did. It was Con that failed to even make a solid main argument. His rebuttals are even worse.

"4: I must confess, I don't even know what "MLA FORMAT SOURCING" is, but I would like to remind voters that points for sources should be on the basis of reliability and relevence rather than formatting. I have not only provided more relevant and reliable sources (Pro's only sources are media publications), but also much greater quantity, providing multiple reliable sources for the most important statements."

I did not utilize as many sources and I must apologize. I urge the voters to grant my opponent the 'reliable sources' points. However, I would like to make my opponent aware that the MLA format for citations should be common knowledge. And even if he has no knowledge of it, he can find free online citation creators such as Easybib and Citation Machine.

In conclusion, my opponent misinterpreted my writings, provided for a weak main argument, stated irrelevant things, misunderstood me, avoided the topic, failed to refute my points, and failed at his duty. I want the voters to consider this. I now close my rebuttals and allow my opponent to post his rebuttals.

Sources:
I did not use any sources in this argument because I did not feel the need to. If I manage to refute my opponent's points - which I did - then his sources will automatically be considered irrelevant. I did, however, provide sources in my opening argument.
andymcstab

Con

Thanks again to Pro for offering some rebuttals. Again I will look to run through those very quickly and then provide a final summary.

Rebuttals

The first line is 'in response to'.
The second line is 'my opponent says'.
The third line is my response.

So, 1:
In response to:
"Pro puts forth to substantiate that sexism is a problem for society, i[n] the following unsourced statement."

My opponent says:
"Not all claims need to have sources. Common knowledge and logic do not need to be sourced."

My response:
I think in the context of international debate, statements such as "divorce laws often favour women, stereotyping and assuming they can care for a child better than a man". Need some substantiation. This may be common knowledge in your culture, but not necessarily mine or anyone elses

2:"Pro has not shown how, if divorce laws did favour women, it should be a terrible problem for society."

"I believe it was implied that this is terrible for society."

I don't see why. Most of the time it is the women who do the most for kids, even in marriage, as I have already sourced.


3: "Pro has not substantiated that divorce laws would be sexist, if they favour women."

The key word here is 'favoring'. Favoring a gender simply because of the gender is sexist.

But pro has done nothing to show that they have been favored because of their gender. Pro doesn't seem to understand, to be sexist the only reason for favouring a sex is their gender. Picking men to work in your lumber yard, because they can lift more, is not sexist even if only men are chosen. The men have been chosen because they can lift more, not just because they are men. Being men is just coincidental of the attribute which is actually being selected.

4:" As i have already argued and sourced (1), it is common for women to retain the child after a break up because it is they who were the primary care givers during the relationship. I will also add, the younger the child is the stronger the bond with the mother due to feeding, especially breast feeding. "(2)

If it were a very young child, I would understand the mother winning custody of the child. However, say it were a situation in which the child were a teen, you cannot immediately say that the mother is the best person to have custody of the child.

But pro, you have not done a thing to substantiate that women are "immediately" assumed to be the best person to take custody.

5:" In the vast majority of cases then it is not descrimination and prejudice based on sex which leaves the child with the mother, but thought for the best interests of the child, founded on information and reason."

My opponent does not prove how and why mothers are the best caregivers for children. He does provide an argument for why women should have custody of their children, but he completely ignores the fathers. What happens to them?

I have provided sourced evidence; women are usually the main caregivers before divorce; women build a stronger bond in early childhood due to breastfeeding; homemaker women are happier than working women, and happy workers do a better job. Pro has done nothing to show fathers are completely ignored. On the contrary they have many legal avenues for recourse if a child is mistakenly given to an unfit mother.

6: "He declares that this gap is caused by sexism but makes no effort to show that it is."

This is clearly sexism. I do not need to source anything for that particular statement. I have a counter-question: How is it NOT sexism?

I have already shown, sexism is when a choice is made exclusively on the basis of sex. It is not sexist when a choice is made on the basis of certain attributes which exist in one sex predominantly more than the other. Covered point 3. You have done nothing to show that the gap is caused by unjust or prejudicial treatment, which is the definition of descrimination, used in your definition of sexism. Picking muscley men to carry logs is not unjust or prejudicial. Its logical.

7: "He declares that the gap is "hideous" but makes no effort to describe why it is."


My opponent clearly does not understand the seriousness of this.

Thats not an argument.

8: "Men have the capacity to be physically and mentally more productive. Their higher peak IQ affords them the top jobs, which often pay 10 fold the salary of a mere 'good' job, raising the average mens salary in completely non-linear fashion. I also argued that women are guaranteed to suffer impaired ability, at least a couple of days each month, lowering their objective worth in the workplace."

I grant my opponent this.

Thankyou

9:"It follows then that prejudice is not necessarily the causal factor behind any wage gap."

The wage gap is clearly caused by sexism. Women, just like men, are capable of doing work and supporting a family. Why should they be treated differently then men? Why can't women and men get paid the same for the same job? This is clearly sexism.

Again my opponent is misunderstanding the meaning of sexism. Sexism is when the justification is only the sex. If you pick men because they have big muscles, it is the big muscles you are selecting, the sex is just coincidental. If you pick men because they are men, with no other justification, that would be sexism, but Pro has provided no example of this.

10: His inclusion of African-American and Hispanic women would be indicative of racism, not sexism, so is invalid."

I grant my opponent this.

Thankyou

11: "He doesn't source any data to show what people assume."

Things that are common knowledge to do need to be sourced.

I don't agree that "When people say, 'Ladies first', they assume that women are weak and unable to wait.", is common knowledge. I mean, its common knowledge that women are weak and impatient? really? I know some very strong, very patient women. Pro again lacks sources.

12 : "He doesn't show how big strong men holding a door open for visibly smaller, less strong women, would be a problem for society"

There is a clear difference between sexism and manners. Holding a door open for a weaker woman is of course acceptable, but treating a woman as weaker when she is not is clearly sexism.

But you never said "when she is not", until now. Even so, holding a door open for a women when she is of equal size to you, is by no means necessarily sexist. It could be, i don't know.. Kindness? Friendliness? Ever had a door held open for you by a man? Ever held a door open for one?

13 "The treatment of transgender folk, even if they were a sex, can be shown to be caused by a host of other factors such as religious beliefs."

Religion may be a factor, but sexism is as well.

Well, you have done nothing to show that is the case.


14 "Pro has yet to provide any example of sexism even existing. That is, descrimination or devaluation based on a persons sex. I am sure examples exist but he is yet to touch on any. The examples he has given are explained by men having more merit or worth, rather than descrimination or devaluation against women, merely because they are women -sexism."

I provided plenty of examples of sexism. The examples of sexism I provided regarded sexism because of gender simply.

No, the examples we have discussed so far have not been examples of sexism because you have never shown the decision to be based exclusively on the sex of a person. If you happen to continually select males to lift logs around, it is not just because they are male that you have selected them. You are really selecting the most muscular people, and those people just happen to be male. If the most muscular people were females, you would select them.

15: "2: Pro has not provided any argument which shows sexism to be a problem for the society at-large."

My argument was a little weak, I grant my opponent this.

He still hasn't!

16: "Pro has failed to offer any rebuttal to my argument showing that enforced "equal opportunities" and pay would be destructive to society."

If anyone failed, it was my opponent. His main argument was completely irrelevant and made no sense.

I have already described in great detail the relevance of my first argument. Pro has not made legitimate objections, I feel this is because of his base misunderstanding of the word "sexism"

Finnally I just want to clarify the analogous argument and the meaning of sexism for my opponent:

That argument showed that things with certain attributes, are better at certain things. For example tyres are chosen before steering wheels not because of an unjust prejudice towards steering wheels but because tyres do a better job in enabling movement of a car.
Sexism is when a decision is made exclusively through an unjust prejudice against a sex. Picking tyres because they're tyres, is not unjust. Preferring to give women custody of a child is not unjust prejudice, but it is justified by the fact that women are usually the care-givers, with the strongest bond to the child. If it was always the woman who got the child, no matter the situation, then pro might have a point. But ofcourse it is not always the woman who gets the child; often when the father does make the strongest claim, for example if the mother is a drug addict, or does not have a stable income or cannot provide care in some other way, then it is he who gets the child, and rightly so.


Sadly I have no time or space for a summary! I will provide summary in the final round.

Thankyou


Debate Round No. 4
WilliamsP

Pro

Conclusion
I read my opponent's rebuttals with great enthusiasm. However, I did roll my eyes a few times. I do concede to the notion that my main argument was weak, but his rebuttals show he misunderstood me. Some things I truly do not need to argue or source. Some things happen to be common knowledge. I have no further rebuttals in this debate. I believe the voters know why. Everyone who read this debate knows why. They know that I have the correct stance and that refuting my opponent's points would be a waste of time. Instead of stating final rebuttals, I will write a paragraph below defending my argument and my stance:

In the second round, I defined "sexism" as "discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women." Contary to my opponent's belief, I stood by that defintion for the entire debate. I do acknowledge that some of my points were unsourced, but some things do not need to be sourced for they are common knowledge. The next time I debate this issue, I will need to elaborate and make my argument more complex and sophisticated, yet I believe my performance in this debate was satisfactory.

This debate was full of misunderstandings and misinterpretations, yet it was enjoyable. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and choosing to discuss this very important topic with me. I will need to improve my debating skills before I start a new debate, but I believe I did well. I praise my opponent's performance in this debate. Now it is time for the voting period to commence. My opponent will write a final statement and then the voters will decide the outcome of the debate. I hope the votes are fair and perhaps I will debate this individual again in the future.
andymcstab

Con

Summary

First I would like to thank my opponent for the debate and his honest and kind conduct which I personally found a very refreshing change of pace. I would happily debate him again, and I applaud the intellectual endevours of one as young as he.

In this debate we have seen pro put forth some considered arguments in attempt to demonstrate that sexism exists and is a prevalent problem within society. I feel that pro has just lacked a little experience in properly tying down his argument so that it fully demonstrates the point he is trying to make. For instance, his argument about wage disparity is just floating, he hasn't managed to tie it down to being caused by unjust prejudice on the basis of sex. He had no response to my argument that men a: have higher peak IQ's which b: tends to afford them the top jobs on merit, and c: the top jobs are always paid inordinately larger sums than the "second best", jobs, accounting for the disparity in average wages between men and women.

We've seen how his "ladies first" stereotypical argument doesn't demonstatrate that this behaviour is sexist because it is not prejudice against women, and could merely be indicative of kindness and well-meaning, and of-course, men also hold the door open for men, and women often hold the door open for men.

We've seen how his argument for sexism against transgenders was refuted because transgender is not a sex, and descrimination against transgenders can have multiple causes, such as religious beliefs.

Lastly, we have not seen any rebuttal from my opponent to my argument which showed how legislating against this so-called sexism would actually undermine the functionality of human society, and leave all of us worse off.

Final Word

Ultimately, because none of my opponents arguments successfully demonstrated sexism as existing, much less a problem for society, I think he has failed to win the motion. Again though I want to thank him for being a great host and making the debate enjoyable, and commend him on his high aspirations.

Thankyou.


Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jamccartney 2 years ago
jamccartney
Your statement means nothing. Voting on another debate has nothing to do with being mature. With that logic, your vote on my 'Evolution vs. Creation' was immature. Your statement is not germane. Please elaborate.
Posted by andymcstab 2 years ago
andymcstab
This is bollocks. Sorry, something very underhand going on here.
Guess who was first to vote? Best friend of Williams P, Jamccartney. He voted 50 minutes ago, for Williams.

It just so happens Jam is also in voting period of a debate http://www.debate.org... and William P voted for Jam 52 minutes ago.

They are blatantly just swapping votes.

You both claim to be "mature", 14 year olds. How about acting like it?
Posted by TrexieGirl 2 years ago
TrexieGirl
Men are more physically capable? Men are smarter? You can argue that sexism is not a problem when you are viciously dishing out these stereotypes? I have seen many women outlift, outsmart, and outwit(not the same thing) many men. Men have invented more things because they oppressed women into the far corners. There are many women who invented many things over time. They are forgotten because men ignored and even took credit for their work. A recent study shows that women are more likely to get into Ivy Leauge and other terrific schools and outperform them while there. And sexism is still a thing. For women, if they propose an idea they are called "bossy". But if a man proposes the same idea, he's a "genius". And in the household? The father is marked as the "leader". What makes the male dominant and the female submissive? Could it be sexism? Why is it okay to treat half the human race like this? In the Constitution, they purposely excluded women. We can deny that it exists, but it's time to wake up and smell the roses.
Posted by andymcstab 2 years ago
andymcstab
Right, blimey. Both respond within a minute.
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
We happen to be great friends and future business partners. We are not at all brothers. We do have similar views, but that does not support the notion of us being "long lost brothers."
Posted by jamccartney 2 years ago
jamccartney
We are not brothers, but we are good friends.

And I apologize for trying to influence the voters. It's simply in my nature.
Posted by andymcstab 2 years ago
andymcstab
Both atheists... lol. You are twins!
Posted by andymcstab 2 years ago
andymcstab
Funny, Jam and Pro have so similar profiles.
Both opened account ~4 months ago.
Both 14
Both Obama supporting, multilingual, progressive egalitarianists.
Both have a 50% win ratio.

Jam opens his "about me":
"I am 14 years of age, however that does not mean I am immature. I happen to be exceptionally skilled, intelligent, and mature."

WilliamP opens with:
"I am currently 14 years old, yes, but my intelligence is well beyond that of the average human. I act many years older than I actually am. I am very mature and very professional. "

Like... Are you two long lost brothers or something?

PS, Jam, stop trying to influence voters.
Posted by jamccartney 2 years ago
jamccartney
Con should simply forfeit. He is going to lose anyway.
Posted by jamccartney 2 years ago
jamccartney
I see no way that Con is going to win this. His arguments are irrelevant and, as Blade-of-Truth stated in an earlier comment, "there is no viable way in which con could win."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MoralityProfessor 2 years ago
MoralityProfessor
WilliamsPandymcstabTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was not so much won by Con, but lost by Pro. Pro continuously failed to bring adequate sources, his main argument seemingly 'things that are common knowledge do not need to be sourced'. Well, they do when the relevant application is vague, as Con pointed out several times: Pro did not show how any of his information were direct results of sexism. Argument points to Con. I also found Pro's tone to be condescending throughout the debate. I don't think Pro 'rolling his eyes a few times', is sufficient reason to not give a response. Conduct to Con. Pro admitted his main argument was weak. Con used sources throughout the debate, whereas Pro assumed his entire argument was self-evident. Sources to Con as well. If there are any questions or comments on my vote, feel free to address them in the comments.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 2 years ago
jamccartney
WilliamsPandymcstabTied
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: Points for conduct, and spelling and grammar and tied. Pro made more convincing arguments because Con mostly used unfounded opinions and mostly bad refutations. Sources are also tied. Even though Con neglected to use MLA format, he uses more sources and still cited them.