The Instigator
Joyisironman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PointyDelta
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

This house would institute quotas for women in national parliaments.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
PointyDelta
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 409 times Debate No: 105089
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Joyisironman

Pro

I will be proposing the motion. Anyone interested can sign in.
PointyDelta

Con

I accept the challenge and ask Pro to put forth their contention.
Debate Round No. 1
Joyisironman

Pro

I propose the motion by saying that women should be given a quota in the national parliament as a Moral Supportive right. Women through the ages have been denied, criticised and hurt on the sentimentality of being a woman( A weak Person). But the 21st Century has been a different outbreak for them completely as they have started getting their recognition as being an equal gender. But the main effect lies in helping them become reformers of countries. A woman when given power of the whole country tries to reform the country"s orders with her non-aggressive and non-repulsive ability. Woman have been housewives, Mothers, Managers ,etc. at various fields but never backed out from any challenge. This Quota reservation will help even the smaller segment of women to finally make a institutional change and reform. Thus, I propose and conclude the argument.
PointyDelta

Con

Given Prop hasn't set forth a framework for this debate, I have no choice but to set forth my own.

I will thus spread out three points over these two rounds, with more substantative in the final round, given Prop will not have the right of reply.

- Quotas are ineffective in terms of actually getting women into parliament
- Even if they did work, they'd be ineffective in dealing the actual issue at hand
- And furthermore they are mostly a band-aid for a problem and as such they allow the issue to be skirted

First, rebuttal.

>Women through the ages have been denied, criticised and hurt on the sentimentality of being a woman( A weak Person).

truism

> But the 21st Century has been a different outbreak for them completely as they have started getting their recognition as being an equal gender.

truism

>A woman when given power of the whole country tries to reform the country"s orders with her non-aggressive and non-repulsive ability.

Right, now here's the issue, around which the rest of the arguments are platudinous - no one will deny that women have been and are oppressed. The central point made by Pro here is that quotas promote reform. I have two key issues with this proposition

1.) In parliamentary systems (the only logical application of this ideal) even 50% is not enough to achieve reform given that women are just as diverse as men with regard to their political leaning, and as such consensus on which legislation to enact is impossible - unless you were also to mandate that women followed the same, or close to the same ideology then this move would be largely ineffective.

Note: the reason non-parliamentary systems don't work is because it's difficult to impossible to determine what parity in power between men and women would even mean - is a Senator equal to two Representatives? What about a Governor?

2.)We haven't seen any evidence of Pro's claim that women will immidiately begin reforming - furthermore, given that Pro hasn't advanced a model beyond "50% of representatives should be women" it's logical to assume two things.

First, within Pro's understanding of the world it is clear that there are those who would wish to preserve the status quo.
Furthermore, those who wish to preserve the status quo are usually those who are representatives of the status quo.

This leads us inexorably to a damaging conclusion, which is that women will either be selected to run in races which they have no chance or will be women who will preserve the status quo, which runs counter to Pro's goals.

(I'll be kind here and assume that Pro meant candidates, not representatives, given that unseating elected men for unelected women would be both profoundly undemocratic and carry the same issues that I discussed in my earlier point)

Quotas are mostly ineffective

I've discussed above how the method cannot be representatives, given that this simply perpetuates the status quo and as such this means that Pro's model fails to demonstrate real societal change occuring as a direct result and as such the motion must fail.

Thank you, and over to Pro. No rebuttal next round as agreed, but I'm not sure I'll need it.
Debate Round No. 2
Joyisironman

Pro

I believe Quotas for Women will not be noneffective as A women only knows what a woman require to become vigilant and bring about changes and amendments to Women's Life at a much more bigger and respectable level like National Parliament. I would like to rebut your previous argument regarding Quotas being noneffective. If quota was really noneffective then India's Progress to bring about Reserved Quotas for the Discriminated people would have never been beneficial. Thus I end my 2nd Argument
PointyDelta

Con

Pro's argument and rebuttal rests upon anecdotal and non-cited evidence. Pro categorically fails to rebut any of my arguments. The burden of proof is negated. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by zmikecuber 7 months ago
zmikecuber
Women are literally only half as good as men you know.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 7 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
JoyisironmanPointyDeltaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Same reason as zmikecuber's!
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 7 months ago
zmikecuber
JoyisironmanPointyDeltaTied
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: Pro just pretty much asserted that since women have been oppressed, there should be quotas for them to be in national parliaments. But he doesn't provide any sources or actual evidence. Con points out that the political views of men and women are very diverse. He also points out that Pro hasn't given evidence that women would immediately begin reforming. So Pro doesn't uphold his burden of proof and arguments go to Con.