The Instigator
hect
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Jcmiamiu7
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

The world needs more feminism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
hect
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,991 times Debate No: 73264
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (3)

 

hect

Pro

This debate should be impossible to accept, If you do wish to debate me then message me or express interest in the comment section. I have closed the debate to avoid people who accept then forfeit as I have had happen often in the past.

rules:
1st round is acceptance only
2nd round arguments only
3rd round rebuttals and arguments
4th conclusions and rebuttals only

If you wish to discuss rules discuss the issue in the comment section.
Jcmiamiu7

Con

I accept this debate and I thank my opponent for challenging me... Hopefully this will be a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
hect

Pro

Sorry this took so long i've been busy.

According to google and the oxford dictionary the definition of feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes (1) (2). Thus via this very sound definition those who support that women's rights should be equally to that of mens are by definition a feminist even if they choose not to recognise the label. Unfortunately as I shall argue throughout this debate not everyone has this mind set. For arguments sake I shall refer to these people as 'anti-feminists' for this debate.

That we know of there is only one cure for world poverty and it can be phased very simply 'the empowerment of women', go to Bolivia, Bangladesh, or Yemen and see (3) (4) (5). Give women control over their reproductive cycle make them not just the beasts of burden and beats of childbearing that they become, give them the right to get a paying job and the floor will rise in that community it has never failed anywhere (3) (4) (5) every time woman's right go up in the third world poverty goes down, against this one solution 'anti-feminism' has turned it's face, the efforts of the 'anti-feminists' in the third world mean more people die not less.
And I appeal to my audience, what is more important the ending world poverty? It is one of if not the biggest issue humanity faces at the moment. This is why the world needs more feminism, to save lives.

This is my opening argument I look forward to my opponents.
Thank you

source
1.https://www.google.com.au... 7gK8HC8gePz4CgDw&gws_rd=ssl#q=define+feminism
2. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4.http://www.economist.com...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Jcmiamiu7

Con

I thank my opponent for his argument and for using good sources. Sorry, I'm rather late as well. Here is my opening statement

While the Oxford dictionary may define feminism as such, I will also consider what feminism actually is in the United States, and the impact it has had on the western world. Also, I would like to point out quickly that if someone considers everyone equal, they must also be considered meninists (or whatever you may consider this to be)as well as feminists, and so on.

The premise of my argument is that feminism is an unnecessary and contorted association, that does no good for women or men alike. I would like to first define being "equal" as having equal opportunity, because in this country that is what matters. If you say "equal" as we refer to it in math, that is leaning towards a communist government where each person is treated as another robot, and the individual does not exist. This point here should not be too debatable, that when we say we are equal, we mean we have equal opportunity.

Now, because the topic is about the world in general, I will also address the western world. And my first contention is that, well, we have equal opportunity here. We technically have the same opportunities and benefits, and the law prohibits discrimination against someone due to sex, so legally they are covered. Women are equal under the law. BUT, beyond this, I belive western feminists have gone too far, and are now promoting a more socialist agenda of radicalism rather than equal rights. If we begin to define equality as simply "equal", we come out with the idea that humans are exactly the same, and should be treated as such. This is where regimes stifle individualizations and living your life how you want to see it lived is simply a dream. So, here, I just want to show that women are legally equal, but if you venture into personal equality, you start to go down a path of socialism. Because you cannot, no matter how hard you try, force someone to change his or her mind. People are seperate and individual, and we have our own thoughts because we were meant to, and shutting that down is a violation of our rights as human beings, at least here. Sorry I didn't quote definitions here, by the way. I figured these simple ideas didn't need an official definition, because of he different ways we use it.

Although the far majority of the population believes in sexual equality, and legally females are equal (in the western world), feminism still has a chokehold on how we think, and I would like to point out a major effect of this movement- the degration of the value of a woman: think about a relationship in the 50s- a guy would usually need to court a girl and win her trust before anything happens, and parties were more of a social interaction than mass orgies[1]. Today, girls are treated as absolute objects, only serving a temporary purpose before the guy moves on to his next choice. Divorce rates are at about 50% [2], showing that women and men alike are not being taught how to preserve a sustainable relationship.

In conclusion, I would now like to say that developing countries would have more of a problem than a solution with feminism. Great societies have been built on traditional relationships and standards, and to be honest, I don't believe I need to cite a source here, the west has only experienced decline and relative turmoil since the liberal/feminist push began. In developing societies, what is necessary is the traditional roles of men and women, no matter how much it sounds bad. It is psychologically and sexually [3] beneficial to a couple to sustain normal gender roles. I don't believe a lack of feminism has anything to do with keeping developing nations down, being more about influence of the west in these nations and not allowing them to develop on their own power. Feminism is, beyond equal laws, a Marxist organization that shows itself to support equal rights, when instead it really represents the idea that everyone is the same, and people are no different from one another.

[1]-http://www.plosin.com...
[2]-http://www.apa.org...
[3]http://www.mercatornet.com...
Debate Round No. 2
hect

Pro

My opponent claims we in the west men and women alike all have equal opportunity however I am not from America rather Australia (still technically part of the west) and can say this is false. For example women currently only hold 5.2 percent of Fortune 500 CEO roles (1). Now one may think that this has nothing to do with sexism maybe women are just not studying or working hard enough this is also false; the male-female ratio in higher education has been steadily moved in favor of the females ever since the 1970s. Total enrollment figures show that females outnumbered their male counterparts for the first time in the late 1970s (in America) (2). Now if women are attaining higher education for the first time ever should they not be attaining more than a measly 5.2 percent of the Fortune 500 CEO roles(from studying education results one could assume it would be more around the 50 percent mark), clearly sexism still exists in the top jobs.
Even at her own home the women is not considered equal in Australia, 13 Australian women have been killed as a result of domestic violence in the first seven weeks of 2015, that"s almost two women per week, as opposed to 0 men (3). And two women per week is consistent yearly. I have to ask the audience where is the equal opportunity for women to feel safe at their own homes, where is the equal opportunity for a women to walk home alone without the shadow of fear lurking around every corner.

Now before I move on I feel obligated to point out a contradiction in my opponents argument with; "Because you cannot, no matter how hard you try, force someone to change his or her mind" followed in the next paragraph by "feminism still has a chokehold on how we think", I must ask my opponent which is it? No matter which one my opponent chooses one of his arguments must be nullified by default.

To my opponents relationship argument. What a suprise relationships are changing. First I shall note how time changes and so do the way people socially interact as arranged marriage were common practice until the 18th century (4), we have moved away from this for the better just as we have moved away from the 50's. My opponent has gone with picking the 50's as an example to show as some sort of golden era for social interaction among the sexes which I shall now refute. I unlike my opponent see no problem with sexuall expression or safe sex with as many people as one wants, it's not hurting anyone. Back to the 50's my opponent claims women today are objectified my opponent could not be more wrong, women of the 50's were the objects they had no career, no mortgage, no bank account, and her role was to serve her man(4). This is true objectification it is the possession of someone the ownership of another human being it is grotesque and hideous.

I find it obvious why divorce rates have gone up because equality has gone up, the women no longer feels trapped.
In Asia, Africa, and Latin America, divorce is both an indicator of and force behind social changes that have improved prospects for women, reduced gender inequality, and fueled development. All of which suggests that the more people are able to get out of bad marriages, the better off their societies are likely to be. To reinforce my original opening argument with the cure to poverty being the empowerment of women, many of the same countries with rising divorce rates have also experienced significant economic development in recent years (5).
The more common divorce becomes in a given society, the less damaging it"s likely to be for those individuals who pursue it. If mothers escape an abusive relationship, it"s good for their children, too (5).

As we can see feminism is a necessity for for the world including the west. It does not just affect women for the better but society and the world as a whole.

Thank you

source:
1. https://www.google.com.au...
2. http://www.forbes.com...
3. http://www.womensagenda.com.au...
4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
5. http://www.bloomberg.com...
Jcmiamiu7

Con

First, I would like to mention that I will rebut in a numerical fashion, then state my argument.

1. My opponent has seemingly equated the 5.2% star with inequality in the workplace. This absurd idea is backed up with yet another stat " that more women are enrolled in college then men. He says that this should at least translate to a 50"50 ratio within the Fortune 500 perimeter. First and foremost, let me point out that both of those stats are misleading. To begin with the enrollment figure, let us first establish that while more women may be in universities then men, men outnumber women about 2:1 in many business fields, such as management or finance, most of which translate to higher salaries. Women are most likely to go a medical route, or similar field [1]. These jobs often offer lower pay. Another high"paying field dominated by men is computer science, where representation stands at about 8"2 [2]. A final example is engineering, where men make up about 83% of the field (a wealthy one I might add), whereas it is absent from the top 10 majors for women. So it should be established that while women may be higher in numbers, that in no way means they should have equal earnings all around, mainly because on average, women take lower paying routes. Hopefully here we can begin to see that the fortune 500 conundrum is based on the path you choose, not sexism in the workplace.

2. Pros second contention was that Australia's women are considered unequal, due to domestic violence. He validates the contention by saying two women are killed per week due to domestic violence, compared to 0 men so far. For starters, the population of Australia is 23.13 million, so that equates to about 0.00000562% of the population, and for just women that figure becomes a mere 0.00001124%. So considering that the percentage of women affected by this is so finite, I find it ridiculous to claim women are "not considered equal" or that they cannot walk at night without fear. To conclude this statement, I also want to point out that while arguing the number of women affected could be good, saying 0 men have been killed is not a sign of sexism. This is a good thing.. So it should be considered good when 0 people have died due to a reason.

3. To address the "contradiction" in my argument, I will quickly point out that my statements had no correlation to one another. The first was simply describing the general statement that you cannot force someone to change their mind. It had little to do with sexism, only a general statement. Because while you can influence someone, you technically cannot force them to think differently. So neither argument is nullified, both stand.

4. This rebuttal is compelling, but with flaws. Pro points out that times change, obviously, and so do people. But vital relationships and natural human interaction should not be discarded as mere "social change". An ageless institution such as marriage is very, very important to how we live. It has been shown that married people live longer, happier lives [3], and are much less likely to go to prison or get in trouble in general. So I did not pick the 50's as some nostalgic golden age of romance to prove my point, but instead as a model of how to build relationships. If you believe all people should be able to live fruitless lives of immorality and short term relationships, then go for it. But just know that it is contradictive to human nature to be a "lone wolf". The 50's works as an example simply because of low out of wedlock marriages, marriages rates in general, and it being the closest period to our timeline before the sexual revolution. It has been shown that permanent relationships are a key factor to your happiness, and being sexually active at a young age can have consequences, such as STDs and high welfare dependency (for out of wedlock marriages) [4]. To wrap up this point, I want to argue that women of the 50s were not objects. They were fulfilling jobs equal to or greater to those of men- raising the next generation. It should be seen as 2 supports leaning on each other for balance, both fulfilling equal, but different jobs to survive. You have a false view of history where women were enslaved to men, toiling for the oppressive mans desires. In actuality, women were completing equal jobs to men, and it is only recently that feminists have decided that raising traditional families is bad.

5. Pro argues that because equality has gone up, so has divorce. In reference to my last paragraph, let me stress again how important marriage and relationships are to human life. It has nothing to do with any inequality or enslavement. It is something that has been found in every society, ever, and among animals similar to us. You seem to have this warped leftist view of marriage " that it is an idea made up by scheming, abusive men years ago, and must be eliminated or made useless. I cannot emphasize enough that marriage is not something that should be declining. Not to sound racist, but an example is the black family. Once equally employed and independent, now over 70% of African-American babies are born in out of wedlock relationships [5]. Welfare is at an all-time high, and black unemployment is much noticeably higher than white or Hispanic unemployment. The only solid answer achievable is the decline of the African american family.

My opponents argument for economic growth being tied to feminism is a mere coincidence. The rates displayed in his source are very low in correlation, which shows that economic growth in South America is linked to the privatization of industries, the development of countries, and the less Socialist government style, which just so happens to be happening alongside feminism. No real or credible research actually suggests that feminism improves the economy. Let me remind you, since feminism has become dominant in North America, our economies have done anything but explode.

My argument: to sum up my argument, I will again point to the rise in out of wedlock marriages, degration of women to objects, and the decline in marriage. Being born out of wedlock is not good for anyone. The parents are more likely to have been in prison, be poor, had multiple children with multiple partners, and suffer from depression. Children brought up in this situation, in turn, have a similar outlook ahead [6].
The degration of women is definitely a thing, and it is hard to deny. Can you not agree, especially at a young age, women are seen as objects and temporary bragging rights opposed to a person? We are not being taught to seek out long and prosperous relationships- instead told that quick sex and promiscuity is good. This encourages unstable marriages, which encourages unstable societies. Children cannot raise themselves, and if the 2 parent system is the best way, why not encourage that way?
The decline of marriage is also linked to this. As marriage declines, so does the structure and order of society, and from that point it becomes a free fall to social prostitution and a life devoid of actual relationships.

To the reader, if you got this far, I must ask why and how this type of orderless society could be supported, where equality by opportunity is not the norm, but instead equality by sameness takes root. And that, my friends, is the road to serfdom, otherwise known as socialism.

[1]- http://www.bloomberg.com...
[2]- http://www.randalolson.com...
[3]- http://www.foryourmarriage.org...
[4]- http://www.heritage.org...
[5]- http://www.nationalreview.com...
[6]- http://m.huffpost.com...
Debate Round No. 3
hect

Pro

I shall rebut and finally conclude.

I used Australia as one example of sexism in relation to domestic violence and my opponents defense to this was that the population of Australia was to small to be seen as a valid point, perhaps I should have used India as a better example where the population is much larger and as we all know if anyone reads the news violence against women is common place. So if you lump India in there as well the numbers of deaths would sky rocket.
So the women of Australia do not matter? Just because they are a minority we should disregard there suffering and say it is of no concern? I don"t see how you can look anyone, anyone in the face, or live with yourself, and say anything so hideously, wickedly immoral as that. Or even imply it.
Of course 0 men being killed is a good number but it should be the same for women.

I see nothing wrong with marriage at all unlike my opponent however I also see nothing wrong with ending a marriage no one should feel pressured for financial or other reasons such as the way they will be 'judged' by society to stay in an unhappy marriage and thus life.

"the black family. Once equally employed and independent" I think you mean to replace "employed and independent" with forced labor and slavery.

"Can you not agree, especially at a young age, women are seen as objects and temporary bragging rights opposed to a person" so you agree we do need more feminism then. Because the way I see this this is an equality issue.

All of what my opponent has said is well and good but does not really answer the question of why the would does not need more feminism my opponent talks about issues of relationships and such but this has very little to do with feminism rather about how morals and values change and develop over time.
I on the other hand showed how the empowerment of women is the only known cure to poverty and how every time equality for women has risen in the third wold so has quality of life.
Why would any one stand against equality for all around the world I do not know.
Jcmiamiu7

Con

Arguments:

1. Well, Australia was used by you, and I simply pointed out that there is not a domestic abuse problem there. Then pro, most likely understanding his point was done, went on to accuse me of being immoral... Simply because I said women are essentially equal in Australia. Did my opponent not say something as ridiculous as "the women is not considered equal in Australia". What planet do you live on? 13 people dead of domestic abuse is not a wonderful figure because even 1 is bad, but 13 is not exactly civil war. Australia is actually one of the most accepting countries.

And quick note, women are not a minority. They make up slightly over 50% of the population in Australia.

To sum up this point, I would like to draw attention to pro freaking out, asking how I could look someone in the face and tell them that women don't matter. This is laughable.. All I acknowledged was that 13 people dying is a low figure, and he is acting as if I hate women. On the contrary, I respect women to a high extent, and people dying is unacceptable. But let's please try to be civil here. And if you're going to be that picky about 13 people, then why are you not outraged that about 40% of severe domestic abuse victims in the US are males? Hypocrisy at its highest.

2. What are you talking about here? "I see nothing wrong with marriage at all unlike my opponent"..... Making up arguments out of thin air is not a genuine way to debate. I would appreciate if you read my defense of marriage in the last argument. I never said people have to stay married. If you would have read my argument, you would have noticed that I said feminism is encouraging young people to discard traditional relationships, causing the divorce rate to grow higher. This is because people still feel compelled to marry (which they should), but they marry someone they shouldn't, and feel that if they ever have a problem, they can bail. This is no way to live.

3. I sigh. Forced labor and slavery? In the mid 19th century America, sure. But let's actually critically think here, and bring ourselves to the mid 20th century. I understand the racism of the times, but you have to think about the situation. Black people did not dominate gangs, did not have the highest murder rate in the US, and were making peaceful strides towards more liberty. But what holds the most weight today are the movements of Malcolm x and black panther. While Martin Luther King is more widely celebrated, blacks and whites don't exactly intermingle as peacefully as he foresaw. I know you live in Australia, but in the US many blacks have a strong feeling of dislike towards white symbols of authority, mainly the police. African-American marriages and families are in ruins, and violence is at an all time high. This is attributed commonly to the breakdown of the family unit, causing chaos in the development process. You seem to be blowing off this societal distructure, when it is causing many of the problems we have today. Hopefully that summed up my example on marriage in a correct way.

4. Pro misinterprets my argument. I am not arguing for more feminism in the west, I'm arguing against it. Women's rights and feminism have been staples of western society for a long time, and this is a cause of that. Now if TRUE support for women were to come about, it would be accepted. It would not be anti man, make political statements, or use bullying tactics to demean those who do not agree. It would simply be for women's rights. And now that they have equality under the law, there is no point in having this hate machine around. Now, REALISTICALLY, feminism is not even close to that model. It's a pro liberal, Marxist organization that preaches hate against conservatives and those not agreeing with them. And along with that, it encourages females to be independent of men, and I would say most feminists would view traditional marriage as a way that the male has dominated the female, which is ridiculous.

You say "Because the way I see this this is an equality issue". This dependance on feminism that you have to solve all equality problems in the world is blocking your view of how to fix the issue. "Feminism" is a similar word to "Nationalism", which many times today holds a negative connotation. It is not being just pro-country, or pro-woman. It means that you only have the interests of your country in mind. This holds the same for feminism.. they are not about fixing equality, they are about elevating the woman to the same level or above the man by employing the federal government to do their deed.

Let me ask my opponent something. Are all basketball players equal? Legally they have the same opportunity. And technically, it should be possible for anyone to be a professional. But the NBA is 81% players of color [2], while the general population is 64% white. And just as many white kids play basketball young as other races. Does this mean whites are being discriminated against? Of course not, but by this feminist logic, shouldn't it be 50/50?

Conclusion:
Here pro takes massive assumptions and leaps of faith. First of all, let's be honest here. Pro did not "prove" feminism is the best way to lift countries out of poverty and raise the quality of life. That is utterly ridiculous and no legitimate economist can vogue for that. If you honestly believe women's empowerment is holding own third world countries, you may be too naive. The reason those countries stay down are due to the regressive ways they run their countries, where the rules intentionally hold their citizens back to keep their own power. And as an example from the west, we can easily see that feminism, if it even does anything, has made our economy weaker. Since the late 60s, when feminism took root, we haven't exactly experienced a great deal of economic success. Other than the 80s (which was the weakest point for feminism) and the technology boom of the 90s, our economy has been mediocre at best. Hopefully this is a testament to how "great" feminism made our economy, considering it even had an effect.

I believe I have answered the question of whether or not we need feminism. To answer it more thoroughly, is encouraging women to be more independent and be critical thinkers good? Yes. Is giving women the same opportunity as men good? Yes. But is creating a female/"nationalist" organization that encourages women to act the same as men, and to not "submit". This places false ideas of how the world works into ignorant people's minds. The result of feminism in the west is social disorder and chaos, a breakdown of the family, and economic struggles.

To finish off this debate, I will redefine definitions of equality, so we can re evaluate my opponents last statement. In math, equality is "having the same quantity, value, or measure of another" [1]. This obviously means exactly the same. This could pass for the communist definition of how the world should be. But if you believe in democracy and liberty, and the freedom of people, then it is oppressive to make everyone exactly the same. That creates a dull and grey society, where no one can flourish to their supposed potential. Now, the way we use the world equality in our terms, is more about "having equal opportunity". This is far different, because, even though my opponent will be hesitant to admit it, we DO have equal opportunity. I have to ask him, is he looking to create a socialist society, where all people are treated as equal machines, and not individuals, or a free society that allows personality to take over. Legally, we cannot be treated differently, so there is no argument. And like I said before, you cannot force someone to change their mind, so if someone does not want to vote for a woman, you can not make him vote for a woman, or else you cross the line between liberty and oppression.

[1]- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2]-http://www.tidesport.org...;
Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Sorry for the late reply. I was having someone whose opinions I trust, review the vote, then inform me if it was at all lacking.

"Ragnar is obviously biased."
I will not claim to be without bias (anyone who claims to be wholly without bias, has never heard the term feminist before), yet I am one of the few voters who does not award points when the bias is excessive, which for this debate it was not. In fact the primary bias I had going in, was against your opponent.

"There is literally no credible evidence..."
Perhaps had you taken the provided evidence (such as Bangladesh) more seriously, you could have refuted it by showing why it was not credible.

"I don't see how you people actually believe that feminism does anything good"
Almost anything does both good and bad. One of my sociology teachers was a man-hating-butch-lesbian, so I've seen the negatives first hand.

My personal advice is to advertise this debate more on the forums, to try to increase the total number of votes. There's a decent chance you'll still win.
Posted by Jcmiamiu7 2 years ago
Jcmiamiu7
Ragnar is obviously biased. There is literally no credible evidence to say that feminism "greatly benefits" developing countries. The sources used barley even supported what he said, and he streched that by so much. I don't see how you people actually believe that feminism does anything good. And a clear up, the reason I used the U.S. and the western world as an example because feminism exists here more so than in other countries. Not hard to understand.
Lastly, im arguing for more respect than equality, because they already have equality. Feminism isn't a way to achieve that.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
---RFD---
ARGUMENT (PRO): This was about the whole world, not the United States. It was effectively shown that developing countries greatly benefit from more feminists; for the US to counterbalance that, it would need to be shown the US needs a greatly reduced number of feminists.

A good example of pro's better performance, is catching the self-refuting argument (R3, second paragraph), which really wasn't corrected by con with saying a choke-hold on how people think and no one can change how someone else thinks are independent of each other; that he continued to use it later...

Con's Golden-50's argument was easily turned into mincemeat. No "the 50's works as an example simply because of low out of wedlock marriages," did not recover it; I am entirely unsure how marriages can ever be out of wedlock. Nor did "They were fulfilling jobs equal to or greater to those of men- raising the next generation" since con has already stated the results of such, in a very negative light (the sexual revolution a paragraph or two back).

Pro eventually caught that con was actually arguing for women equality (I disagree with equal but different being equal, but not my debate), the definition for feminism in this debate stands as "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." Con's case was against certain "feminists," not actually against feminism itself (which he admitted in his conclusion).

SOURCES (PRO): Exemplified in R2, pro used numerous relevant ones (Economist, Forbes, etc...), whereas con seemed unaware of the actual content of his (relationships being now being mass orgies, claimed, sourced, but not supported within any source). The Mercatornet.com source doesn't pull up any article. Tidesport.org was simply broken.
Posted by Jcmiamiu7 2 years ago
Jcmiamiu7
Yeah I know I meant to put it slightly earlier when it was talking about the 50s in general
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
"parties were more of a social interaction than mass orgies[1]."
Looking over said source, I am finding no mention of these claimed orgies.
Posted by Jcmiamiu7 2 years ago
Jcmiamiu7
Just touching it up
Posted by hect 2 years ago
hect
@Jcmiamiu7: just in case you have forgotten you have 4 hours left
Posted by Jcmiamiu7 2 years ago
Jcmiamiu7
Hmm... I'm trying to post my argument but there seems to be technical difficulties. I'll post it as soon as I can
Posted by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
Zarroette, I'm sorry you misinterpreted, but I did not in any way call you a woman-hater or a bigot. I didn't even mention those words, I just made the point that feminism isn't an exclusive belief and that gender roles are not significant enough to be universally applicable or really applicable at all in the context of politico-economic issues.

If you really block anyone that tries to engage in discussion and provide an alternate viewpoint, then you're just here to satisfy yourself, rather than debate, or to learn.
Posted by Nivek 2 years ago
Nivek
Dalt's comment...... thumbs up.

Relax guys, lets just wait for the debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
hectJcmiamiu7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments... NOTE: Please put definitions in R1. Since this was not done, definitions default to Standard English (like the oxford dictionary pro used, con of course could have countered with another dictionary or even another entry from the same one). Certainly not introduced in the final round, when they cannot be countered.
Vote Placed by Luharis 2 years ago
Luharis
hectJcmiamiu7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote 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 believe the pros side was convincing enough to explain in why in the entire world, feminism is an important force behind social equality. However i feel con must be awarded points for conduct as pro was accusatory several times throughout the debate, whereas the con managed to stay objective. With that being said, all in all, it was a very good debate.
Vote Placed by kingkd 2 years ago
kingkd
hectJcmiamiu7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Very good debate. However, Con wins in the end, as women and men have equal oppurtunity, not necesarily equal outcome. True, women hold a small share of the Fortune 500, but that is because they choose different career paths, no need to blame society. Good by both debaters