The Instigator
The_Chaos_Heart
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
rross
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

The United States of America Should Elect a Female President

Do you like this debate?NoYes-7
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 9 votes the winner is...
rross
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,017 times Debate No: 28740
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (43)
Votes (9)

 

The_Chaos_Heart

Con

I would not typically challenge someone to a debate, but this particular situation is peculiar, and is something that has been bothering me for quite some time. Awhile back I found myself engaged in this debate on the topic of a female president, shown here:

http://www.debate.org...

Now from my perspective, I think it should be clear to anyone with half a brain that my arguments were demonstrably stronger when compared to that of my opponents. And yet, rross voted against me when it came to arguments, and her reasoning posted on the debate hardly supports such a vote. Normally I would have simply sent her a message to discuss the matter, and better understand her reasons for voting and her beliefs on the subject, but in her case, she has public messaging disabled.

So here I am, left with what I can only view as a flawed, biased vote, made not based on the contents of the debate, but by some predisposed bias towards the pro stance of said debate. But I cannot be certain this is what it is. So here I invite rross to affirm or deny my beliefs, and explain her thoughts on the subject, in the form of a debate against me. The debate is the same as before: Should a woman be president of the United States of America? This first round is for acceptance, should rross accept. We will begin arguments in the rounds to follow.
rross

Pro

Hello The Chaos Heart

Thank you for this challenge.

I put my reason for voting at the time. I thought it was very clear. Your opponent was ten years old. It was her first debate. She did actually set up the debate and I thought (and still think) that your tone and language were completely inappropriate to the point of being bullying. Although of course that was probably not your intention.

You did still win the debate, though.

My public messaging is not disabled as far as I'm aware. Certainly, a month ago Wallstreetathiest put a message up and I haven't changed it since then.

Anyway, there was nothing to stop you friending me and sending a message that way. You could also have put something in the comments.

However, you have chosen this way. And it is a debating site after all.

I can't see, though, how this debate will change my opinion about voting the way I did. I wasn't particularly engaged with the content of the debate; it was more that I considered you disqualified for the reasons already outlined.

But I'm delighted to debate with you. Thank you again for the challenge.

As you have burden of proof, of course you go first.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

I will take no more space in this debate for the discussion of the vote. I can discuss that in the comments. Now then...


Let us first properly understand what the resolution states, by defining the key term, 'should'. 'Should' is defined as follows, by the American Heritage Dictionary[1]:


Should

1. Used to express obligation or duty.


The resolution then can be stated as follows: The United States of America has an obligation to elect a female president. This is what I intend to negate, and what my opponent must affirm. The problem is, of course, sex has no bearing on one's capability in a position of leadership. In fact, being of either the male or female sex has no bearing on any relevant criteria. And in fact this is the exact line of argument used by Feminists and Humanists for why women should be allowed to be president to begin with, i.e., the fact that they are a woman has no bearing on their ability, or inability, to lead the country. So if being of the female sex is not a reason to prevent someone from running for president...why then should it be a reason to MAKE someone president? What the resolution is truly claiming, and my opponent by extension, is that we should be choosing our president based on irrelevant criteria. No, worse than that; that we have an OBLIGATION, a DUTY, to choose our president based on irrelevant criteria. The very notion is asinine.

None of this is to say, as I am certain my opponent will attempt to frame it, that a woman cannot or should not be president (in other words, we do not have an obligation to prevent women from becoming president). Certainly if the more qualified candidate happens to be female, that female should become president. But what I am arguing is that their being female should not be a reason to elect them, as it qualifies them for...nothing. We have no obligation to prevent women from being president, but we have no obligation to make one president either, just as we have no obligation to make any man a president simply because they are male. To be male should have no bearing on one's choice of president, so why should it be said to have a bearing on one's choice when the sex is female? No, we have no such duty, no such obligation. We have no more obligation to elect a female president than a male president; what we have is an obligation to elect the best qualified president, regardless of sex.


Sources

1. http://ahdictionary.com...;
rross

Pro

My opponent has chosen to reframe the resolution, most significantly adding the word "should" and formally restricting the discussion to the United States. keke2002's original resolution was simply "Women for President".

Should modal verb (3rd sing. should) [1]
  • used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions
  • indicating a desirable or expected state
  • used to give or ask advice or suggestions

Using the second definition of "should", the resolution can be read as:

It would be lovely if The United States were to elect a Female President

This is, I think, an interpretation more true to keke2002's original argument. She said, "give women a chance", and "women have a right to be president". She did not in any way imply that the United States be obliged to elect one type of candidate over another. For her, it was a desirable or expected state.

My opponent goes on to claim that sex has no bearing on one's capability in a position of leadership. She then argues that Americans have an obligation to elect the "best qualified" president, and that sex does not have anything to do with this quality of being "best qualified".

In a democracy, the "best qualified" candidate must be the one who most truly represents the people of the country. There are no other criteria by which to judge how qualified presidents are. Therefore, my opponent has already conceded that a woman could represent the country as truly as a man.

So why has a woman never been elected? I'm sure my opponent agrees that the process by which Americans elect their presidents is not necessarily perfect. For instance, it's regrettable that candidates need so much money to have any chance at being elected. When it comes to the election, there's only a short list of candidates to choose from and I'm guessing that - in the past - it was a list of middle-aged, white, wealthy men. Even in the most recent election, men vastly outnumbered women on the ballot.

And yet, there are more (51%) female than male Americans [2].

The President of the United States is an extremely powerful position, obviously, but it is also a symbolic role. Keke2002, no doubt, is learning at school that there have been 44 Presidents of the United States: a long, long chain of men. This has meaning. She quite rightly protests. There should be women in there too. Since women can represent the country as truly as men, and since there are more women than men, at least sometimes the President of the United States should be a woman.

To my mind, Keke2002's argument is absolutely compelling.

1. http://oxforddictionaries.com...

2. http://quickfacts.census.gov...

Debate Round No. 2
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

I am not sure if my opponent is arguing in support of Keke2002, or her own stance, as she does not seem to make firm claims for the latter, and even her closing statement is in relation to the past debate. Non the less, I will try to keep things in the context of this debate as best I can.

First, let me address what it is my opponent claims about Keke2002's argument. While it is true the resolution is written differently, the intent behind it has not changed. For instance, though the resolution said nothing on the subject, Keke's first post clearly indicated she was thinking within the context of America. Further more, her argument was not simply one of "women should have the potential for being president", but rather, that a "woman should be president." So my opponent is being a tad intellectually dishonest when saying I have "re-framed the resolution". I have in words, but the intent is the same as the previous debate. There is no significant change.

Now then. Let's move on from this subject.


1. Semantics of 'Should'

Though I reject my opponent's definition, as I think non of them fit the context, even if we were to accept them, they all still share the same fatal flaw: They are all suggesting we place value on irrelevant criteria. To say that "it would be nice" or "could we perhaps have" a female president is to desire a president based on criteria which in no way is relevant to the role of the president. This is no different than saying someone should be president because they have red hair, or a gold tooth. It is illogical, and further more, unjust. This makes it immoral. Yes, immoral. Allow me to explain.

As I have often said, nobody wishes to suffer. Not a single soul. Even those who might wish to suffer, only desire a certain kind of suffering. They still would not wish to experience what they and others would consider "true" suffering. Given then that nobody wishes to suffer, society should focus on maximizing freedoms, while limiting harms, so as to bring about the best possible reality for everyone. This should be the ultimate moral guideline for any decision making. And it is under this moral premise that my opponent's argument is immoral. When we choose presidents on irrelevant criteria, an injustice, it is harmful. And when we say "so and so should be president because they are a woman", we are, ironically enough, oppressing men from becoming president. For just as you advocate for someone to be president based on their sex, you then tell the other sex "you should NOT be president". This is oppression. This is corruption. Nobody deserves to be supported or shunned from the presidency because of their sex; a thought hard fought for might I remind my opponent by women's rights activists. If we wish to maximize freedoms, and limit harms, we must advocate for people to become president regardless of their sex, not because of their sex. To say anything less is sexism and unjust discrimination.


2. Qualifications of a President

My opponent, though she speaks true, simplifies what it means to be president. Yes, they must best represent the people, but there are several qualities a leader must have in order to truly lead a people. For instance, you may find someone who matches the ideals you hold, but what if they are spineless? What if, even if they agree with you, they are too passive to stand up for you in the face of opposition? What if someone does not know how to be sociable with people? What if one is prone to insult and outlandish behavior, that could potentially endanger them self and others around them? And let us just think of the basics of being a president. What if someone has no idea how Congress functions, or how to create laws? What if in fact they are illiterate? Yes, the president must represent the people, but it is not as simple as my opponent makes it out to be.

You will however notice that non of the above is helped by being male or female.


In any case, I agree with my opponent's claim, that any woman can represent the people as any man can; which is precisely why being a woman makes you no more desirable than being a man. Being female or male has no bearing on how good of a President one would make. Being female does not in anyway make you qualified to be President. It is your personality, your knowledge, your character, your ideals and convictions, that determine how best you represent the people, and how good of a president you would make. Not your body. Not your genitalia. Having a vagina makes you no more qualified than having a penis.

My opponent goes on to complain about how presidents are elected, however, she never fully fleshes out the idea. She merely highlights some supposed problems with how we elect individuals, and...that's it. She never makes a point out of it. And while I agree with her complaints about the way presidents are elected, it is entirely irrelevant to this debate. Which is probably why she made no point out of it. The problems with how we elect presidents have no bearing on whether or not we should choose a president based on their bodily sex. It is an entirely separate issue.

My opponent goes on to state that more than half of the U.S.A's population is female. While this may be true, how this has any relevancy to the debate is beyond me. If my opponent is trying to say that because of this, women should be president, there are several flaws. (1) Being male does not make you incapable of representing females, (2) being female does not mean you inherently represent females, and (3) again, to claim that someone should be president based on their sex is to say someone else should not be president based on their sex. That is oppression.

Finally, my opponent claims that because women can represent the country as well as men, there should at least sometimes be female presidents. But there is no logical connection between those claims. Just because someone has the potential to be president, does not mean they will, or should, be president. For instance, I have the right to try and be president. But do I want to? Hell no. But just because I have the right to be president, does that mean I should "at some point, be president"? According to my opponent, yes. Poppycock. I will do no such thing. What my opponent is doing is committing a propositional fallacy known as "affirming the consequent"[1]. The fallacy goes as follows:

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.

Perhaps the problem may not be as clear as one would like it in this form, so let us take an example from the Wikipedia page:

If Bill Gates owned Fort Knox, then he would be rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

See the problem?

In the same way, let us observe what my opponent has just claimed about the Presidency.

If women should be president at some point, it would mean we have free and open elections which would allow them to become president.
We have free and open elections which would allow a female to become president.
Therefore, there should be a woman as a president.

The problem is, just because someone CAN be president, does not necessarily mean they SHOULD be president, and for my opponent to try and make that logical connection, is to commit the above logical fallacy. My opponent's argument here is horrendously flawed to the point of being fallacious, and therefore, invalid.


So let us review:

1. Whatever definition you choose for "should", they all share the same problem in that they support someone based on irrelevant criteria.

2. To say someone should be president because of their sex, it to say someone else should not be president because of their sex.

3. Being female makes you no more qualified to be President, or represent the population, than being male.

4. My opponent did not flesh their arguments out enough to make a decent point.

5. My opponent committed a propositional fallacy, rendering that portion of their argument illogical and invalid.



Sources

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
rross

Pro

the word "should" is key to this debate

My opponent rejects my definition - the Oxford Dictionary's definition - of "should" because "non of them fit the context".
This is not an explanation that makes any sense at all.

My opponent said she is confused why I keep mentioning Keke2002's arguments. Because we are recreating that debate here. My opponent stated clearly in round one: "The debate is the same as before". Keke2002 did not define "should" because she worded the resolution differently. My opponent has chosen to put "should" in the resolution here. By defining "should" as "expressing obligation or duty" she is moving the debate away from its original intention. We need to look back at Keke2002's arguments to decide on the right meaning.

As a courtesy to readers, I will put Keke2002's entire argument here:

Resolution: Women for president

"Woman have a right to be president. We, the woman of America, need someone to represent us. I'm not saying we are better than men, but it's unfair to judge all women by how one might act. Would you for instance, try a bad strawberry than never eat strawberries again? Give women a chance." [1]


My opponent has already conceded most of this argument. She agrees that women have the right to be president, and that they should have the chance to be elected. She has spent a lot of space agreeing that women are not better than men but equal.
Perhaps the only part that she is arguing with is this:

"We, the wom[en] of America, need someone to represent us."

Of course, my opponent would argue that "someone" could be a man or a woman, while Keke2002 almost certainly meant that "someone" should be a woman.

Throughout this argument, there is NO sense of "obligation or duty". Definitely a sense of preference, though.

So "should", in this context, indicates a "desirable or expected state" rather than a sense of duty or obligation.


"should" refers to present and future

The other aspect to the modal "should" is that it represents the present as well as the undefined future. Again, from Keke2002's argument, there's no reason to suppose she was talking about the present or about a single case of presidency. Rather, the resolution means the USA should elect a female president at some point in the future.

This does not, as my opponent suggests, mean that saying "women for president" is oppressive to men. There are enough presidencies in the future for both men and women.


So. To be absolutely clear. We are arguing:

Is it desirable or expected that the USA elect a female president at some point in the future?


the process of electing a president

When a democratic process, that is supposedly open to all, churns out a male president time after time, you can draw one of three conclusions:
A. The majority of people generally prefer a male president
B. The process is somehow biased in favor of men
C. There aren't any adequate female candidates.

My opponent has already agreed to dismiss reason C.

If the reason is B, a biased process, then I think we can also agree that it should be fixed to be unbiased. And if it were only the process that had stopped women being president, then we would soon start to see some women become president and this would be desirable as it represents the true choice of the voters.

But my opponent is implying that the reason for all the male presidents is A. That people genuinely prefer a male president. That even though the majority of voters are women, they feel that a man best represents their interests. And that, if this is the case, it is wrong to say that a woman should be president.

However, this completely contradicts her other argument that men and women are equally capable of being president. If, over time, there are equal numbers of capable male and female candidates and yet the voters keep on picking the male candidate even though the men are not in any way better overall, what can be happening except sex discrimination?

Whether it be in education, culture, organisations or wherever, and whatever the qualities of this discrimination, surely it cannot be seen as desirable? There should not be unfair discrimination of this kind. Therefore, in this case of vote preference, too, the resolution stands.


My opponent's argument about logical fallacy

My opponent claimed that my argument was fallacious and she summarized it as follows.

"If women should be president at some point, it would mean we have free and open elections which would allow them to become president.
We have free and open elections which would allow a female to become president.
Therefore, there should be a woman as a president."

This is hilarious. Look at her first sentence: If P then Q. She is claiming that free and open elections are a consequence of having a woman president! If that's true, then the USA should definitely elect a woman president, because free and open elections are really important.


1.http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

1. The Semantics of 'Should' - Continued

As I said, I reject my opponent's definition, for it does not fit the context. The reason I say this is, as the WRITER of the resolution, I know which meaning I intended when using the word "should". But in any case, my opponent still wishes to use her definition of the term. As I stated before, either way, all definitions suffer from the same problem. They place value and advocacy on irrelevant traits; one's sex. This is something my opponent has not argued this round. She has not contested that sex is irrelevant to the role of the president, and she has not contested that we should not be choosing a president based on irrelevant traits.

So no matter which definition you choose, the flaw is the same, and my opponent is no closer to making a point than she was to begin with. Even if I were to concede to her definition, she still has all her work cut out for her.

Now my opponent raises the point that "should" includes the present and future. This is true...and something which was never contested by myself. No, in fact, I took this into account in saying the things I said. When I said that advocating for a female president is oppressive to men, I meant that in ANY situation. For if but one president who is female is elected BECAUSE she is female, that is one presidential era in which the world denied men the presidency, because they were men. This applies to any presidential election, no matter how far into the future you go. So my opponent's point about 'should' applying to the present and future is moot. It has no meaning in this debate.


2. Keke2002's Argument

My opponent continues to raise up the issue of a past debate. One must wonder if she is aware she is debating this debate, and not the other one. Need I remind her that whatever happened in the last debate is irrelevant. She is debating THIS resolution, not the last, and she is needing to build her OWN arguments, not try to defend Keke2002. She is wasting her's and my own time when she does so.

Now my opponent seems to think that my discussing Keke2002 at the beginning as an invitation to debate the things that occurred in that debate. It was not. It was an explanation for as to why I made this debate, nothing more. My opponent, however, seems to wish to ignore this, and instead debate something that is not the debate. Interesting...

Non the less, she claims that based on the wording of Keke2002's argument, the definition of MY resolution should be one of a "Desired of expected state". If that is the route she wishes to take, so be it. However, she seems to think that proving this will in of itself somehow win her the debate. As I previously stated, even if I were to concede her definition, she still has ALL her work cut out for her in showing why irrelevant traits should be desired or expected when electing the president. She has made no argument for her case here.

Now as for the key point of Keke's argument, "We the women of America need someone to represent us", based on the debate it is implied that Keke thought a woman needed to represent women. However, the reason this statement cannot be construed as merely "a desirable or expected state", is because of the key term 'need'. 'Need' is very different from 'want'. If she has said "We the women of America want someone to represent us", it could very well be construed as a "desirable or expected state". But when someone has a need, it means they do not simply desire something, they MUST have it. Meaning those who can provide it MUST provide it. Meaning, they would have an obligation, or duty, to provide it.

Ergo, the wording means obligation or duty, not merely a desirable state, as my opponent continues to attempt to claim.


3. The Process of Electing a President

First, let me thank my opponent for finally taking this and making a point out of it. However, my opponent has created a false dichotomy. She claims the reason for a lack of female presidents is one of the following:

A. The majority of people generally prefer a male president.
B. The process is somehow biased in favor of men.
C. There aren't any adequate female candidates.

Now my opponent seems to think I have agreed to dismiss reason C. I ask her to show me whence I made such a concession? I have previously stated that being female makes you no more qualified than being male. However, this does not mean males and females will be equally viable when racing; it means their sex does not hinder nor help them in any way. It is entirely possible that you have unviable female candidates, just as you have unviable male candidates. So I would respectfully ask my opponent not to put words in my mouth.

Now as for the reasons themselves, they are simple reasons, that do not take into account the complexity of social structure and human behavior. And because of that, my opponent ignores several other avenues which may be a cause for the lack of a female president. For instance:

D. The social structure could encourage women not to pursue such roles
E. Females could perhaps, even if they are equally capable of serving such a role, have an innate biological disposition that makes such a role undesirable to them.
F. The system could perhaps not favor men or women, but another class of people (e.g. the wealthy) who happen to be mostly men.
G. It could simply be luck.
H. Perhaps the female candidates do not get enough media attention.
I. Perhaps in relation to that, female candidates are not likely to gain favor in well known parties.

I could go on and on, but my characters run low. The point is, my opponent's three reasons are hardly enough to take into consideration the full account of why we haven't had any female presidents thus far.

Now my opponent thinks that, if the reason is reason B, and we fixed the issue, somehow this would mean we would see female presidents. But this is the same propositional fallacy she made before, on which I will go into more detail below. Capability to become president does not mean one WILL become president.

Now my opponent claims I support reason A. This is why false dichotomies are dangerous people. I ask her to, once again, please show me where it is I ever showed support for such an idea? And if she cannot, I ask her to stop making straw men arguments. That's two logical fallacies you've made now in your arguments.

She asks, if males and females are equal in terms of candidacy, what reason can there be for a lack of female president other than sexual discrimination? Well, as I displayed above, lots of reasons! My opponent is trapped in the realm of her own false dichotomy, and cannot see beyond it's veil.

Lastly, my opponent seems to equate the only opposing force to 'should not' being 'should'. This is not so. One can say "women should not be prevented from being president" without saying "women should be president". This is another false dichotomy proposed by my opponent. One must wonder why she makes false choices as her arguments. Intentional or not, they are deceptive; a warped logic.


4. The Propositional Fallacy

My opponent once again, for the third time this round, is being intellectually dishonest about the things I've stated. I did not say, as she did not say, that free and open elections are a consequence of having a female president. I said free and open elections are a consequence of saying women should be president. Why is it my opponent continually misrepresents me? Can she not honestly argue my points, or does she not realize she is being dishonest?

In any case, the fallacy still stands. My opponent seems to think that, because there are free and open elections, this somehow means women should be president, or that we should already have had a female president. This is a logical fallacy, a propositional fallacy. And she continues to attempt to defend it.


I implore my opponent in the following two rounds to cease her intellectual dishonesty, and to, perhaps, stop supporting a fallacy. If she continues, it will reflect badly upon her.
rross

Pro

Con claimed: "as the WRITER of the resolution, I know which meaning I intended when using the word "should""

This is absolutely outrageous. My opponent is actually claiming that because she wrote the resolution, she has ownership over its meaning. She does not. She had the opportunity of defining terms in the introduction and she chose not to. Therefore, the resolution should be understood in its context by applying the most normal, or natural, meaning of the words.
And the most natural way of understanding the resolution is:

It's desirable and expected that one day a woman will be elected President of the USA.

and not, as my opponent insists (quite against democratic principles):

American voters have a duty to elect a female President and to vote against any equally qualified male candidate who may run against her.

The likelihood of a female President

America has had 44 male presidents in a row. Let's look at the likelihood of the next 44 presidents being male too.
Assuming that men and women have an equal chance at election, the chance of the next ten Presidents being male is one in a thousand (0.5^10). The chance of the next 20 Presidents being male is one in a million (0.5^20). The chance of the next 44 Presidents being male is less than one in a trillion (0.5^44). Less than one in a trillion or, in other words, negligible.

So we can be very confident indeed that if women and men have an equal chance at being voted in as President, that a woman will be President, probably within our lifetime and certainly within a generation or two.

However, of course, there may not be an equal chance for men and women to be President. For example, until less than a hundred years ago, women were denied the right to hold office and even the right to vote, by legislation.

Reasons why a woman has never been President

I thank my opponent for her examples to add to the list of reasons why a woman has not yet been President.

(Just a little note: "dichotomy" means "a division or contrast between two things" [1]. Therefore, my list, which contained three things, was indeed a "false dichotomy" but perhaps not in the way my opponent intended it.)

I have updated the list to include her suggestions:

A.1 There is direct discrimination against women. Eg. Con: The social structure could encourage women not to pursue such roles

A.2 There is indirect discrimination against women. Eg Con: The system could perhaps not favor men or women, but another class of people (e.g. the wealthy) who happen to be mostly men.

B. The election process is biased against women. Eg Con: Perhaps the female candidates do not get enough media attention; Perhaps in relation to that, female candidates are not likely to gain favor in well known parties.

C. There aren't any adequate female candidates.

My opponent also suggested that "it could simply be luck" that women have not been elected President. You'd have to be pretty unlucky when the odds are less than one in a trillion that a woman not be elected in 44 Presidencies at even sex odds.

And her final suggestion: "Females could perhaps, even if they are equally capable of serving such a role, have an innate biological disposition that makes such a role undesirable to them."

Let's put aside, for now, the idea that half the population of the United States is uninterested in controlling the destiny and laws of the nation because, um, they're just girls, perhaps, and it's all so serious!
Instead, I will say this. To be President of the United States requires energy, drive, ambition, purpose. It is impossible for anyone, male or female, to perform adequately as President in a half-hearted sort of way, or if they don't want to be there.
My opponent has already conceded that men and women are equally qualified to be President. One of the required qualities is a determination and desire to be President and do the job well. Therefore, my opponent contradicts herself by suggesting that women have no desire to be President.

To summarise. The lack of female Presidents could be the result of direct or indirect discrimination or a biased election process. All of these are undesirable. They should be resolved. And the best evidence that they have been resolved is when a female President is elected, not just once, but regularly.

My opponent has leapt back in with the idea that there might be a lack of viable female candidates. Given that she has agreed that there is no difference between men and women's qualifications to be President, a lack of viable female candidates, election after election, could only be the result of discrimination somewhere or system bias. So the same argument applies.

Con argued: "One can say "women should not be prevented from being president" without saying "women should be president"."

Not really. There is less than one in a trillion chance of 44 male Presidents in a row if women had an equal chance at being elected. Considering the next 44 Presidents, now that legislative barriers have been removed, and discrimination is being addressed, at least some of those next 44 Presidents should be women.

Burden of proof

My opponent instigated this debate and she has the burden of proof. She has burden of proving the resolution to be untrue. She has tried to change the meaning of the words of the resolution. She has tried accusing me of being "dishonest" and "deceptive". She has tried that old chestnut of rights for women somehow being discriminatory towards men. What she has not done, however, is uphold the burden. Because we all know that the United States should indeed one day elect a Female President, and she has failed to prove otherwise.

1. http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 4
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

'Should' - Final

My opponent attacks my claim to authorship. I would like to remind my opponent and the viewing audience that I never stated my opponent could not argue against the definition of 'should' I provided. My claim to authorship was merely an answer to her query about context. It would seem to me she is attacking me for...answering her question. Odd.

In any case, my opponent continues to assert, without much reason other than to oppose my definition, that the wording should be a "desirable or expected state". She does not seem to realize that she still needs to provide explanation for WHY this is a desirable or expected state. Again, as I've said repeatedly now, even if we accept her definition, she is no closer to making a point in this argument than if she were to not use such a definition. She needs to explain why. Why would a female president be desired? Why is it even to be expected? She needs to make an argument. She has not.


Probability of a Female President

My opponent has an egregious error in her reasoning here. Do not be deceived. She claims the probability between a male or female president is 50%. How she can predict this, for the entirety of the future, is beyond me. She seems to discount the fact that at any given time there may be far more males than females running for president, or vice versa. If, for instance, there was only one female in a group of sixteen candidates running for president, the chance of a female president would only be 0.0625, not .5. And there are far more candidates than merely sixteen in any given election. She does not also figure into the numerous other complexities of an election, such as the money or media attention required to successfully run, certain education, likeability, capability, ect.

My opponent cannot soundly claim there is any such probability, certainly not one of .5. She has no grounds to claim any of this. She is ignoring the complexities of politics, as well as the social movements that may or may not happen in the future. Hell, for all we know, it's possible in 100 years we won't have presidents anymore! We may have a completely different form of governance. How likely this is is anyone's guess, but the point is, my opponent simply cannot account for how likely the chance of a female president truly is. She has not given any sound reasoning for her .5 claim, let alone for the extremely unlikely claim that the probability of the next 44 presidents being male is one in a trillion. All it would take is one election where the chance of a female president is less than .5 to throw off that ENTIRE statistic she claims. My opponent, in short, has no idea what she is talking about. She is making up numbers, and acting as if they are true, set in stone.


Lack of Female Presidents

First of all, my opponent is right to say "dichotomy" was not the right choice of words. Trichotomy would have been correct. My error. However, dichotomy, trichotomy, the point is, she proposed a false dilemma, and continues to do so. Notice how she "Revised" her list, yet did not add in all of the explanations I provided. She openly is unwilling to include any and all possibilities; only those which fit her agenda. She refuses to look at the situation objectively. Until she revises her list to include any and all possibilities, it simply is not accurate.

My opponent makes light of my suggestion that females may be predisposed for not wanting such a position, but she does not explain why. It is not entirely worth ridicule to suggest that, nor is it hypocritical of me to suggest. Just because males and females both may be able to perform well as president, does not mean such a leadership position is DESIRABLE to them both equally. This is a false dichotomy.

My opponent also seems to think that a lack of qualified female candidates in a supposedly free and open environment can only be explain by discrimination. This is another false dilemma by my opponent, and the same propositional fallacy she has been making this entire time. Just because someone CAN do something does not mean they WILL do something. For instance, although being male and female does not in of itself make one qualified or unqualified for the presidency, perhaps males and females seek different kinds of educations, which figure into their capability to be president. Perhaps again the environment one is in encourages certain kinds of behavior (which is far different from discrimination mind you). Again my opponent creates a false dichotomy, and does not factor into every possible explanation; only the one that is most convenient to her prerogative. This is intellectual dishonesty.


'Should' vs. 'Should Not'

My opponent yet again proposes another false dilemma, in that she believes it can be soundly stated that if one opposes the notion of 'should' they are supporting 'should not'. This is, again, a false dichotomy. One can say "I do not think that we have an obligation or duty to elect a female president" or "I do not think it is desirable or expected to have a female president" without in fact saying "we have an obligation or duty to PREVENT female presidents", or "It is UNDERSIREABLE or UNEXPECTED that we will have a female president". In fact, I have done just this. Just because we should not pick a candidate based on their sex, does not mean we should disqualify one. Just because being a female does not make you DESIREABLE as a candidate doesn't mean you are UNDESIREABLE; it just doesn't factor in. And just because we may not be able to expect a female president does not mean we can expect NOT to have one either; it simply means the process and factors that figure into someone becoming president are far to vast and complicated to be predictable in any reasonable manner. My opponent's attempt is evidence of this. And yet, despite all of this, she still proposes that someone can only argue one or the other. This is a false dichotomy. It is not an "either or" choice as my opponent would claim it to be.


Burden of Proof

I have no idea where my opponent is coming from with this burden of proof nonsense. The burden of proof is not upon the person who makes a debate, but upon the person who is making a claim[1]. In other words, in most situations, it is the affirmative, my opponent, who has the burden of proof. Not the negative. The negative is considered the natural stance. My opponent does not seem to understand this, and by consequence, does not seem to understand the very institution of BOP she invokes. I suggest she learn how burden of proof functions before she tries to haphazardly toss it out as a last ditch effort to criticize someone.


And as my opponent, at the very least, shares in the burden of proof, she has not, in any way, made an adequate argument for why there should be a female president. She has not, as I have defined the resolution, argued for why we have an obligation or duty to elect a female president, and she has not argued why a female president is to be desired at all, when being female is no more relevant than having, say, red hair, or a gold tooth. She has argued none of these things. And her only attempt at arguing the expectancy of a female president, which she only made last round mind you, fell flat on it's face. Her attempt at probability was horrendously flawed.

My opponent has not in any way fulfilled her BOP, or given a sound argument for the resolution. She has in fact proposed several false dilemas, comitted a number of fallacies, including a propositional fallacy which runs through entire argument (which she dropped and did not contest in the end), and has been intellectualy dishonest on several occastions.

Whereas I have clearly shown why a female president is not desireable or to be expected, and also why we have no obligation to elect a female president. Any burden of proof I may have has been fulfilled.

The same cannot be stated about my opponent.


Vote Con.


Sources

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
rross

Pro

Con has the Burden of Proof

  • When I accepted Con’s challenge (round 1), I assumed she had burden of proof.
    Specifically, I said:

As you have burden of proof, of course you go first.”

  • Con did not challenge this until the final round (round 5). She did not refer to it at all in rounds 2,3 or 4.
  • Because she was silent on the issue, I assumed that she agreed and accepted the BoP.
  • The final round is far too late to challenge BoP when it was expressed directly in round 1.
  • Therefore, Con definitely has the BoP in this debate.

Con has failed to meet the Burden of Proof

  • Con’s case, in her own words:

“For just as you advocate for someone to be president based on their sex, you then tell the other sex "you should NOT be president". This is oppression. This is corruption…we must advocate for people to become president regardless of their sex, not because of their sex. To say anything less is sexism and unjust discrimination.”

  • Con has decided that “should” means a duty or obligation. She has offered no defense for this interpretation except that "as the WRITER of the resolution, I know which meaning I intended.” This explanation is inadequate. A more natural interpretation of "should" in this context is as an expression of desire or expectation.
  • If men and women had equal access to being elected president in a non-discriminatory environment, then there is a chance of less than one in a trillion that there would be 44 male presidents in a row. It’s a simple calculation: odds of 44 male presidents in a row = 0.5^44 = 5.68434E-14

Although I provided this calculation in the last round, Con chose to ignore it and resorted to ad hominem attacks. In particular, she said: “My opponent… is making up numbers, and acting as if they are true...” Not at all.

  • Con said: If we wish to maximize freedoms, and limit harms, we must advocate for people to become president regardless of their sex, not because of their sex.
    I absolutely agree. Women should be elected President sometimes and men should be elected President sometimes. It is not discriminatory to men to say so. The USA should have free and fair elections, men and women should both have chance at high office, and one day in the future, the USA should elect a female President.
  • Con has failed to prove otherwise, therefore she has lost this debate.

PLEASE VOTE PRO

Debate Round No. 5
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 1 year ago
makhdoom5
do u know chaos what is the meaning of one eye.
Posted by makhdoom5 1 year ago
makhdoom5
indeed a bad idea.
lol.
the nation is going to ruin more earlier than now. if female leader would be there.
in every aspect its not good idea. which mostly compel u is science. so scientifically its worst idea.
lol.
Posted by likespeace 1 year ago
likespeace
"Pro then argues that the lack of any female presidents demonstrates an unfair gender bias." To connect the dots, "It would be lovely if The United States were to elect a Female President." since that would be an indication of less gender bias in a country where the constitution states we're all equal.
Posted by likespeace 1 year ago
likespeace
A central point in this debate is whether this was a new debate or a resurrection of the previous one. Since the instigator (Con) stated in round one, "The debate is the SAME as before." I will agree with Pro that this is a resurrection of the previous debate.

Thus I allow Pro to define SHOULD, but also saddle her with the burden of proof to show "It would be lovely if The United States were to elect a Female President."

As for the main topic, Pro argues that women are equally qualified and Con concedes. Pro then argues that the lack of any female presidents demonstrates an unfair gender bias. She dismantles the arguments that the situation is cooincidence (Con's rebuttal, again, assumed an unfair gender bias) or that women are incapable (using Con's own words). Finally, with respect to the false trichotomy argument, Pro's list referenced all of Con's ideas. Pro thus has a strong argument.

I award "argued convincingly" to Pro in a close debate.

I award "conduct" to Pro due to Con's round one "half a brain" remark.
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 1 year ago
The_Chaos_Heart
*She cannot be without
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 1 year ago
The_Chaos_Heart
"Nope."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes. Anytime someone makes a claim, they have a burden to prove their claim. That is the entire IDEA behind BoP.

"You cannot let her go through the entire debate assuming you have BoP, then try to challenge this in round five."

1) How was I supposed to know she did not think she had a BoP herself? I was willing to accept a shared BoP, which is why i did not context her words, and continued on with my arguments.

2) She cannot be with BoP. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Burden of proof necessarily correlates to claim making. That's the very foundation of the term. Burden of PROOF. The burden to PROVE something.
Posted by DudeWithoutTheE 1 year ago
DudeWithoutTheE
" BoP is with a claim maker; period. Always."

Nope. That's why it's a convention to specify BoP at the start. There are reasonable arguments for why 'BoP is with PRO' 'BoP is shared' or 'BoP is with the instigator' are all reasonable standards to assume in the absence of a specification from the instigator.

But more to the point, imho a dropped claim about BoP should be treated in exactly the same way as a dropped argument, ie held to stand. You cannot let her go through the entire debate assuming you have BoP, then try to challenge this in round five. Your contention to this will probably be that her having BoP was obvious - but she could assert the same about you, it doesn't get us anywhere.
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 1 year ago
The_Chaos_Heart
"What you are accusing PRO of doing is false dichotomy, when it is clear in this paragraph that PRO is stating that "only opposing force to 'should not' being 'should'" This is NOT A FALSE DICHOTOMY. This is proper negation, and a proper use of basic logic."

It IS a false dichotomy. I outlined this in my argument, which you evidently did not pay attention to. You should also note that Pro never contested that it was a false dichotomy either. By not contesting it, pro conceded to it.

"What YOU say afterward IS A FALSE DICHOTOMY:

"This is not so. One can say "women should not be prevented from being president" without saying "women should be president". This is another false dichotomy proposed by my opponent.""

HOW is it that I made a false dichotomy? I took the argument of my opponent, and talked about how there was more than two options. That's the exact OPPOSITE of a false dichotomy. You're accusing me of something that isn't true, and it's right in the quote you just posted! And then you have the gall to say I'm a "troll"? Apparently you don't understand the definition of the word "troll" any better than you understand what a false dichotomy is!

"You are blatantly lying here by alleging that PRO stated this."

Lying =/= creating a false dichotomy. It was not something directly stated by pro in plain words, but it was a theme of their argument; that I could not oppose the resolution without implying that I did not want a female president at all. That is why she tried to back me into a corner by stating I MUST have supported point 'A' on her list when she first made it.
Posted by wrichcirw 1 year ago
wrichcirw
You are one hellova troll, bud. At least I know who to avoid now.
Posted by wrichcirw 1 year ago
wrichcirw
Ok, this is going to be my last comment to you, because it is clear to me you aren't going to stop.

Here's the paragraph in full:

"Lastly, my opponent seems to equate the only opposing force to 'should not' being 'should'. This is not so. One can say "women should not be prevented from being president" without saying "women should be president". This is another false dichotomy proposed by my opponent. One must wonder why she makes false choices as her arguments. Intentional or not, they are deceptive; a warped logic."

What you are accusing PRO of doing is false dichotomy, when it is clear in this paragraph that PRO is stating that "only opposing force to 'should not' being 'should'" This is NOT A FALSE DICHOTOMY. This is proper negation, and a proper use of basic logic.

What YOU say afterward IS A FALSE DICHOTOMY:

"This is not so. One can say "women should not be prevented from being president" without saying "women should be president". This is another false dichotomy proposed by my opponent."

Why do I say YOU are stating this? Because I put it in a text finder and YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE MAKING THIS STATEMENT. You are blatantly lying here by alleging that PRO stated this.

I've made this accusation against others before: Your behavior is atrocious. Either that, or you seem to be incapable of discerning reality properly, or have some other type of warped logic that I cannot follow.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Eve13 1 year ago
Eve13
The_Chaos_HeartrrossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm giving conduct to rross, because while she did make some mistakes when talking about The_Chaos_Heart's arguments, they were just mistakes. And she dropped them after they were pointed out. The_Chaos_Heart was kinda snippety though when replying to her. Like she was being passively aggressive. Maybe she didn't know, but, whatevs. Spelling and grammar was about the same between the two. I'm giving arguments to The_Chaos_Heart, because she outlined quite nicely that, no matter which definition was used, being female was still irrelevant to being president, so the sex of the president isn't something that should be valued. It may be "okay" to have a female president, but it's not something to desire or look forward to. rross never really fulfilled her burden of proof in proving why it was to be desired; she talked about fair elections, but that's a separate issue, and not really a reason to elect a female president. Sources go to both because none were really "better" than the other.
Vote Placed by likespeace 1 year ago
likespeace
The_Chaos_HeartrrossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments section, particularly comments #40 & #41.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 1 year ago
1dustpelt
The_Chaos_HeartrrossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter votebomb Bull_Diesel, the only rfd she/he gave was "I stand by my vote" and that the BOP was mentioned too late, which does not justify their vote. He/she then went on to say that Con has a bunch of multi-accounts instead of actually writing an RFD on the debate. Bad debate
Vote Placed by tmar19652 1 year ago
tmar19652
The_Chaos_HeartrrossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con overdid it on the semantic arguments.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 1 year ago
larztheloser
The_Chaos_HeartrrossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 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: Voters below here should read: http://goo.gl/xecMC. This was a poor-ish debate that got better. Pro had BOP and thus right of definition. The continued references from the previous debate detracted from the resolution. Under his own model, pro had to prove why it would be "lovely" if a woman was more qualified than a man, and the only reason he could give was to satisfy another member on this site. Con's counter-argument (except for the waste-of-time semantic point) was OK - that men can be qualified too. Pro countered that biases were bad for democracy, but pro never explained WHY biases were bad for democracy. It was problematic for con that they agreed women would make good presidents, and this became pro's principle line of attack. I didn't think con's personal, unjustified-at-any-point beliefs were enough, though, to carry the resolution for pro. Being unable to meet his BOP, I cannot award this to pro. Conduct to pro because of con's ridiculous semantic argument. Msg me if qns.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
The_Chaos_HeartrrossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm just not getting involved actually.
Vote Placed by Bull_Diesel 1 year ago
Bull_Diesel
The_Chaos_HeartrrossTied
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: I stand by my vote, and agree with the others that it's ridiculous to wait until round 5 to challenge BoP. I've voted a couple of debates today that Chaos_Heart is in and it seems pretty likely that Princess Nena and Dark_Armegeddon are her alternate accounts, they seem to have vote bombed each of the debates she's taken and the only debates they have taken themselves are against one each other and only 1 round B.S. debates with no content or real arguments made.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 1 year ago
wrichcirw
The_Chaos_HeartrrossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments. Awarded grammar to PRO as well because CON does not grasp the meaning of "false dichotomy"
Vote Placed by AshleysTrueLove 1 year ago
AshleysTrueLove
The_Chaos_HeartrrossTied
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: I don't think Pro had a provable claim, they way she argues it seems more as if, if there is a good canidate that is a women then we should elect her, but their isn't yet so we should not