The Instigator
Cooldudebro
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kasmic
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Wage Gap

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/29/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 807 times Debate No: 87393
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (3)

 

Cooldudebro

Con

Hello! I would like to debate this topic with you. If this goes well, I may debate other topics regarding feminism. Even if you aren't interested, please reply to let me know whether I should expect to debate you or not.

Pro's stance is that women, in the same field, make substantially less than men due to no other factors besides the wage they are given in many different instances.

Con's stance (Me) is the opposite. Women in the same field make just as much as men due to no other factors besides the wage they are given in many different instances.

First round is for acceptance. Good luck!
kasmic

Pro

I accept, good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Cooldudebro

Con

I'll allow Pro to post his arguments first. Good luck!
kasmic

Pro

Welcome to debate.org! Thank you for issuing this debate challenge and good luck.

The Wage Gap

“In 2012, the median earnings of American women working full time year-round were $37,791. American men earned a median income of $49,398. The gender wage gap has hovered at about 77 cents on the dollar since 2007.” (1)

This shows that generally men are paid more than women in the U.S. The typical response to this is to ask are women paid less because they choose lower-paying jobs.

Consider,

“Earnings are high for both women and men who work as computer and information systems managers. But while median earnings for men in 2011 were just over $98,000, median earnings for women were around $86,000. Likewise, aerospace engineers tend to earn a good living. But while a typical male aerospace engineer took home just over $100,000 in 2011, his female counterpart was paid $83,000.”(2)

This shows that Higher income occupations pay men more than women on average for the same work.

“Median earnings for male engineering technicians in 2011 were just over $56,000 compared with median earnings of $43,000 for female engineering technicians. Among drafters, typical earnings for men were just over $51,000 while typical earnings for women were just over $45,000.” (2)

This shows that median income occupations pay men more than women on average for the same work. Clearly the pay gap is empirically evident and as such, is indisputable.

Con has outlined my burden stating “Pro's stance is that women, in the same field, make substantially less than men due to no other factors besides the wage they are given in many different instances.”

I have clearly met this burden. Unless Con can somehow demonstrate the study from AAUW suspect or invalid, or semantically argue the wage gap is less than “substantial” than I have won this debate.

Sources:

(1) www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/gender-wage-gap_n_3941180.html
(2) http://www.aauw.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Cooldudebro

Con

Konichiwa! Thank you for your argument.

I would like to assert that women work less than men. For instance, women are more likely to work part time. Women, on average, work seven percent less hours than men even when they work full time. Women are more likely to take long leaves of absence; normally to start a family. (3)
If we factor that in, your argument that women make less than men in the same field stat to make sense. Note that you never provided their actual wages.

I've looked at your other source. It's by a women's group so its credibility is shaky. None the less, I will refute it. Women are more likely to work part time or spend less time at work. They're also less likely to go into higher paying specialties. Let's look at the claim.

"In 2012, the median earnings of American women working full time year-round were $37,791. American men earned a median income of $49,398. The gender wage gap has hovered at about 77 cents on the dollar since 2007."

Note! This is women in general who work full time in many different fields. Men tend to work in higher paying jobs. Now factor in that women work less. On top of that, factor in long leaves of absence. Doesn't everything make sense? Women make as much as men. They just don't put in as much or of the same quality work as a man.

Arigatou!

Anime Op:

A Certain Magical Index 1 OP: https://www.youtube.com...
Date A Live Season 1 OP: https://www.youtube.com...

1. https://www.youtube.com...
2. https://www.youtube.com...
3. https://www.youtube.com...
kasmic

Pro

I mentioned in my opening argument that unless Con can somehow demonstrate the study from AAUW suspect or invalid, or semantically argue the wage gap is less than “substantial” than I will win this debate. Let’s see how he did.

1: The Study From AAUW

Con’s only refutation to my source is that “It's by a women's group so its credibility is shaky.” This is an appeal to motive, a common logical fallacy and is unsubstantiated. Perhaps con could attack the content rather than the group.


Con ignores my examples of higher paying jobs and only addresses my first source. This is a huge oversite as the other source demonstrates the wage gap is present when job field and experience are equal.

Thus my sources stand.

2: The Wage Gap is Substantial

Con asserts that women work less than men and that “Women, on average, work seven percent less hours than men even when they work full time.” He says this is due to longer leaps of absences. It should be noted that if on balance women work 7 percent less perhaps they would be paid 7 percent less, rather they are paid 23 percent less on average.

Men are paid more than women. The data shows this difference to be substantial; certainly more than 7 percent. Con’s only argument that is sourced argues that perhaps 7 percent difference would be explainable.

We see that the wage gap is substantial.

Overview:

Con has a disturbing view that women are paid less than men because “They just don't put in as much or of the same quality work as a man.” Neither my sources nor my opponents implies or substantiates such a conclusion.

I have clearly met my burden in this debate. Con has failed to demonstrate the study from AAUW suspect or invalid, or semantically argue the wage gap is less than “substantial” thus at this point, I am winning this debate.

Debate Round No. 3
Cooldudebro

Con

Talk about knit picking what I say. Jesus H. Christ. XD

Let's refute what he said:

I posted this:
"I've looked at your other source. It's by a women's group so its credibility is shaky. None the less, I will refute it. Women are more likely to work part time or spend less time at work. They're also less likely to go into higher paying specialties. Let's look at the claim.

"In 2012, the median earnings of American women working full time year-round were $37,791. American men earned a median income of $49,398. The gender wage gap has hovered at about 77 cents on the dollar since 2007."

Note! This is women in general who work full time in many different fields. Men tend to work in higher paying jobs. Now factor in that women work less. On top of that, factor in long leaves of absence. Doesn't everything make sense? Women make as much as men. They just don't put in as much or of the same quality work as a man."

What he said I posted:

"Con’s only refutation to my source is that “It's by a women's group so its credibility is shaky.” This is an appeal to motive, a common logical fallacy and is unsubstantiated. Perhaps con could attack the content rather than the group.

Con ignores my examples of higher paying jobs and only addresses my first source. This is a huge oversite as the other source demonstrates the wage gap is present when job field and experience are equal. "

This is not true. It is extremely clear he hasn't looked at my sources. I IMPLORE PEOPLE TO LOOK AT THE VIDEOS I LINKED BEFORE VOTING.

"Con has a disturbing view that women are paid less than men because “They just don't put in as much or of the same quality work as a man."

No, I don't. I posted that with the intention for it to mean women take off more and value other things more than work on average. If you would've looked at my sources, you would've realized this.

By the way, men make more because if they're more career oriented, they get more raises, promotions, ETC. If Con had looked at my sources, he would've seen that the majority of men are work oriented while the majority of women are more family oriented.
In fact, even when women own their own company, they earn less than a man. Ask yourself why that is? Now watch the videos and read my arguments. It should be clear after that.

Just so Con can't misinterpret or just flat out lie about what I wrote, I'll make it clear.

His AAUW study factors in all women and men from different occupations which have different work hours and wages. How could that be valid if the workers aren't even in the same field?

His Huffington Post study doesn't take into account how much time women take off and other factors. If Con had watched my video, he would've understood this instead of knit picking what he wanted to hear. Such factors could be maternity leave, time they take off, how much prevalence they hold in their work, ETC. Like I said, LOOK AT MY SOURCE FOR CLAIRIFICATION!

Con has misrepresented my arguments and clearly has not checked out my sources. Before you decide who won this debate, watch the videos I linked in my last argument! Don't let Con blur your judgement.

Arigatou! Sayonara!

Anime OP:
The World Only God Knows OP 1: https://www.youtube.com...
Accel World OP 2: https://www.youtube.com...;
kasmic

Pro

Thanks for the debate. It has been interesting.

Con says in his final round that he “IMPLORE(S) PEOPLE TO LOOK AT THE VIDEOS I LINKED BEFORE VOTING.”

Apparently con would rather have you watch someone else’s argument than his own. It is not sufficient to post links and expect your opponent to refute there content. Sources are to cite to your argument to add credibility. The videos linked are not part of your argument. Your arguments must be posted within your character limit. I can in no way be reasonably expected to refute all points made in the videos. That’s 15 mins worth of commentary. ( In perspective, this whole debate read aloud is maybe 5 mins.)

Con must know this because he says “
If you would've looked at my sources, you would've realized this.” He also said “Now watch the videos and read my arguments. It should be clear after that.“ If I have to look to your sources to complete your argument, then your argument is incomplete. I Implore voters to ignore any content not in the debate, if the content is sourced great but the debate is to be judged by the content therein, not all content linked.

Final Overview:

I have clearly met my burden in this debate.
Con has failed to demonstrate the study from AAUW suspect or invalid, or semantically argue the wage gap is less than “substantial” thus at this point, it is only reasonable to vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
I can see a win going either way in this debate--it isn't as one-sided as the votes seem to indicate. Con misrepresents sources, Pro doesn't substantiate sources.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
Sorry, posted that incorrectly. The vote hasn't been removed just yet, but it will be later today:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Stonehe4rt// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con used a considerable amount more sources, Pro did not want to admit Con's sources as liable however he used his Huffington Post source as liable. Hence contradicting his own logic. Con showed many things in his debate of how Women are paid the same, however there is less working women and they also can get pregnant hence Maternity Leaves. This is an obvious factor that all women can have. Con made a more logical and solid arguement when Pro contradicted himself in many ways. Such as saying that Con's sources did not support Con's BoP however he later shows that he didnt truly even see the sources and says they are someone else's knowledge. If that was the cause then all sources Pro gave should be taken back aswell. If not then Pro is a liar when he said the sources did not support the BoP.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Citing the fact that one side used more sources (even many more) is insufficient reasoning for awarding source points. The amount of sources alone cannot be the basis for awarding source points, and neither can dismissing certain sources without explanation. (2) The voter doesn't explain conduct.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Stonehe4rt// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con used a considerable amount more sources, Pro did not want to admit Con's sources as liable however he used his Huffington Post source as liable. Hence contradicting his own logic. Con showed many things in his debate of how Women are paid the same, however there is less working women and they also can get pregnant hence Maternity Leaves. This is an obvious factor that all women can have. Con made a more logical and solid arguement when Pro contradicted himself in many ways. Such as saying that Con's sources did not support Con's BoP however he later shows that he didnt truly even see the sources and says they are someone else's knowledge. If that was the cause then all sources Pro gave should be taken back aswell. If not then Pro is a liar when he said the sources did not support the BoP.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Citing the fact that one side used more sources (even many more) is insufficient reasoning for awarding source points. The amount of sources alone cannot be the basis for awarding source points, and neither can dismissing certain sources without explanation. (2) The voter doesn't explain conduct.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
Debate: http://www.debate.org...

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

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Hayd// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: PM me if you have questions on my RFD and we can discuss it https://docs.google.com...

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter provides a sufficient RFD in the link given above, which both analyzes arguments given by both debaters and clearly explains the decision.
************************************************************************
Posted by kasmic 8 months ago
kasmic
I would be happy to do another debate.
Posted by Cooldudebro 8 months ago
Cooldudebro
I was extremely lazy with this debate. I'd like a rematch Pro if he would like to.
Posted by Rosalie 8 months ago
Rosalie
I almost awarded conduct points to Pro, because Con was accusing Pro of lying, when he wasn't. But I didn't, why beat a dead horse.
Posted by Rosalie 8 months ago
Rosalie
--RFD--

PRO easily won this debate.

Pro contends that the middle pay of men is higher than the middle pay of ladies. This is merely what Con wanted Pro to argue, which was "Pro's stance is that women, in the same field, make substantially less than men". He successfully argued, just that. He even listed some names of the jobs, then the annual pay.

Con stated ---

"If we factor that in, your argument that women make less than men in the same field stat to make sense. Note that you never provided their actual wages." This was a lie. Pro did state in Round two, the annual wage different in a male, and female whom worked the same job. He did in fact provide wages.

Con then tried to argue "Note! This is women in general who work full time in many different fields. Men tend to work in higher paying jobs." Con didn't show that Men work higher paying jobs, so why should I believe what he/she is saying.

Con seems to concede to pros argument, but comes up with excuses for not believing it, such as men have higher paying jobs, and that women aren't as motivated to work.

Pro's contentions stay in place, there is still a 16% compensation crevice. This annihilations Con's rejoinder of his case, and nullifies Con's case
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
Both sides severely lacked proper structure, and I had no idea what they were arguing at some times. It was a pain to just read the debate. Note that since the debate is a fact claim, Pro has the burden of proof for making an affirmative statement. Pro's argument is that there is a substantial difference between the wages of men and women. Con argues that there are multiple other factors that affect a wage gap, including the fact that women, on balance, work 7% less than men. Pro responds to the 7% statistic saying the wage gap is a 23% difference, while it should have been a 7% difference -- I don't buy that, because the percentages are for different units, one for time and the other for pay. Pro doesn't explain how pay rate has to be equal to time rate.

Con argues that both studies Pro has don't take into account other factors -- here, Con makes the argument in the last round, and blatantly lies about Pro's sources. The HuffPost link actually details that including other factors, the wage gap still exists. But Pro doesn't mention this in the argument -- in fact, Pro doesn't talk about factors at all. This is just annoying. Here are the impacts I have: (1) Pro argues that the wage gap exists, and (2) Con argues that the wage gap only exists exclusive of the factors. While Pro's source does include factors, Pro barely explicitly mentions factors. But I do have one mention of the factors from Pro I can use (re: people in the same job with same work experience are paid different in the form of examples).

Pro wins based on those examples alone. Tough debate to decide; overall, an interesting read, but poor structure and weakly explained arguments.
Posted by kasmic 8 months ago
kasmic
Lol, that is a terrible vote. I didn't argue the sources not liable. I argued that con did not use sources as credence but rather in place of his own arguement. Clearly a biased vote.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Rosalie 8 months ago
Rosalie
CooldudebrokasmicTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
CooldudebrokasmicTied
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: See comments.
Vote Placed by Hayd 9 months ago
Hayd
CooldudebrokasmicTied
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: PM me if you have questions on my RFD and we can discuss it https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H2xkeuqXhxeUrj8gmCb2b-Bmxi4HME2ghl06YAPI0n8/edit?usp=sharing