The Instigator
WilliamsP
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Defro
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Women are being treated unfairly in this society.

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...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,035 times Debate No: 53995
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

WilliamsP

Pro

Introduction
I would like to debate the issue of sexism regarding females. I believe that women are being treated unfairly in this society and that reform is a moral obligation. My opponent will argue the opposite. Certain rules must be followed in order to ensure that this debate is rational, fair, logical, factual, and mature.

Rules
1. There will be no forfeiture. If one occurs, the voters will award the conduct points to the opposite debater.
2. All sources will be cited. All formats - MLA, APA, Chicago, etc. - are acceptable.
3. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.
4. Trolling will result in the voters awarding the opposite debater a full 7-point victory.

Rounds
One: My opponent will accept the debate and acknowledge the rules.
Two: Each debater will present main arguments. There will be no rebuttals in this round.
Three: Each debater will offer rebuttals and any final arguments.
Four: Each debater will conclude the debate with any final rebuttals and a summary.

Debate Settings:

Rounds: 4
Time to Argue: 72 hours
Argument Maximum: 10,000 characters
Voting Period: 2 weeks
Voting Style: Open
Defro

Con

I accept and acknowledge the rules. But first, allow me to analyze the resolution.


Pro's resolution is a syllogism:

1. Women are being treated unfairly in this society.
2. Reform is a moral obligation.

*Pro did not specify which society "this society" is, so it is implied that this claim includes every society.
*Pro's first claim also implies and must account for all women in every society.
*BOP is on Pro for these two claims.

Debate Round No. 1
WilliamsP

Pro

Introduction
I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate. I truly look forward to it. However, I would like to clarify a few things before I make my arguments. When I say "this society", I am referring the United States in particular. Now, I acknowledge that nearly all nations have sexism within them, but the United States is, in my view, exceptionally disgusting towards females. Sexism occurs everywhere, but this debate is specifically about the United States and only about the United States. I accept the burden of proof.

Main Argument
I will begin by addressing one of the key issues in women's rights: the wage gap. According to CBS, "women still earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. For African-American and Hispanic women it's even lower: 64 and 54 cents, respectively." This is most unfortunate. I cannot see how this is not caused by sexism. We are stereotyping when we claim women are unable to work, are weak, and are of less value than men. Why should we pay them less than men when they are working the same job, the same work hours, the same conditions, the same education, and the same experience? Magforwomen.com says, "[g]ender discrimination still exists in majority of occupations and women are still considered below men, despite being capable of competing at an equal level on the grounds of physical strength and intellectual brilliance. Some organizations pay lesser salary, give lower increments and reduce the growth potential of their women employees in comparison to their male employees." I have now proven this point using two sources. It cannot be refuted.

Magforwomen.com continues with the following statements:

"Sexual harassment, male chauvinism, domestic violence are all, at some point in time, a result of sexism. They occur when men consider women as objects of sexuality and as the ones only destined to do household chores."

"Most religions too discriminate against women with their traditions which show women in bad light. Religions show women as objects of temptation and urge men to shun them in order to reach godliness. Ancient traditions and cultures, some followed even today, require women to cover themselves completely, even their faces, in male presence."

"Education, one of man’s bare essentials in the present age, is also deprived to many female students. Even in developed countries, professors think of their male candidates as more capable and tend to ignore the female candidates."

The above three phrases should be considered by my opponent, the viewers, and the voters. They clearly show that sexism is still a part of the United States society. The Huffington Post states, "[t]
he situation isn't much better in other areas of high-level management: Despite big gains, women only make up slightly more than 10 percent of big company chief financial officers. And more than one-third of public companies had zero women senior officers, according to a recent survey from Catalyst, an organization aimed at expanding business opportunities for women." This is clearly sexism. I believe we should grant women the same opportunities as men and not treat them as inferior. Both sexes have great potential, but the wage gap and other issues are what restrict women from taking control of that potential. This is absolutely disgusting and inhumane.

"Making matters worse, almost half of all workers are prohibited or strongly discouraged from discussing pay information, according to an IWPR report. That means women workers can't find out if their male colleagues are earning more than they are." Huffington Post provides more examples of sexism, but I believe these are the most crucial ones. I urge my opponent as well as the viewers to view all of the websites in my 'works cited' section so that they can see for themselves.

Here is an example: A man graduates from Harvard at the top of his class. A year later, a woman graduates at the top of her class from the same school. They both have the same education, experience, and credentials. Both apply for the same job. The man, more than likely, will receive that job simply because he is a man. This is hideous and obviously identified as sexism.

Now, why, you ask, is reform a moral obligation? In order to prove my claim that it is, I do not need a source. I do not need to search the internet for facts and data. I must speak the truth we all know. If you are at all human, if you have any empathy at all, you will agree with me. What if it were your daughter or your wife that endures this sexism? What if a great friend of yours goes through this? You will surely sympathize with them, support them, comfort them, and take action.

It is time to realize what society is doing to its female members. It is time to make a change. Will we simply stand there and do nothing, or will we take action for what is right? I do not see how my opponent can argue Con on this debate. Unless he provides sufficient evidence and manages to refute everything I wrote - which I think is impossible - he will be taking the immoral, inhumane, hideous side of this issue.


Works Cited
1. http://www.cbsnews.com...
2. http://www.magforwomen.com...
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Defro

Con







*Disclaimer(s):

-Pro's recent confirmation on the debate is out of order. The instigator of a debate is allowed to set the rules and parameters of the debate, but once someone accepts the debate, it is a violation of conduct to change anything or make any modifications. After the debate has been accepted, the challenger has the freedom to interpretation, as long as his or her interpretation is valid. And I have interpreted that this debate be about every woman in every society. Furthermore, as can be shown in the comments section, even viewers of this debate thought the resolution covers every women in every society, therefore BOP is on Pro to account for every women in every society.

-At the end of his round 1 arguments, Pro claimed that as Con, I must provide sufficient evidence and refute everything he wrote. Pro clearly does not understand who has the burden of proof here. He has stated that he accepts the burden of proof, which is completely on him (not me). I do not have this burden, so I am not obligated to provide evidence or refute "everything" he wrote. Rather, Pro must address my every statement with suffiecient evidence.

-Pro has committed ad hominen. I will not tolerate Pro's insults claiming that I am "immoral" and "inhumane". This is a violation of conduct.

-I will not provide any rebuttals as agreed upon.


===============================================================================


I will provide examples that show how women are not treated unfairly. The below examples do not neccessarily apply to certain nations, but it doesn't have to because I don't have any BOP. Furthermore, they apply to most countries, so they are valid nevertheless.

-Women's Suffrage: In the United States and many other countries, women are allowed to vote. This is fair. [1]

-Currency: If a woman buys an orange for 50 cents, but pays with a dollar, she will recieve 50 cents worth of change. This is fair. [2]

-Crime: If a woman commits a crime, she goes to jail. This is fair.

-Reserved Seats: All across the world, there are reserved seats for pregnant women in public places such as buses, trains, subways, and airports. [3] This is certainly fair.

-Medical Care: If a woman is sick or injured, she can go to a hospital to recieve treatment, which she pays with her own money or (in other cases) it is paid by taxes, which the woman pays. This is fair.

-Right to ownership: There are 30 established basic human rights accepted by the entire world. The 17th on the list states that you have the right to own things and share them. [4] This also applies to women, so this is fair.

-Equality: The first basic human right states that we are all born free and equal, regardless of gender. [4] This is fair.

-Discrimination: The second human right states that we are not to be discriminated against. [4] This is fair.

-Life: The third human right states that we all have the right to live. [4] This is fair.

-Basic Human Rights [4]: I have mentioned 4 basic human rights from the list. There are 30 in total, and all of them apply to women. This list was established under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. All of the main and prominent countries of the world follow this standard of rights. About 100 countries have agreed to this, therefore, 100 countries treat women fairly. This is fair.

-Right to Business: Women are allowed to own business, just like men. This is fair.

-Right to Divorce: If a woman would like to file a divorce on her husband, she has the right to do so, this is fair.

-Child Support: If a woman got unintentionally pregnant and chooses not to abort, she is allowed to have the government legally force the biological father to pay child support. This is fair. [5]

-Education: Woman are allowed education. This is fair.

-Public Restrooms: Men have their own private restrooms. Women have their own private restrooms too. This is fair.

-Sports: Women are allowed to play every sport that men play. This is fair.

-Laws: If women break them, they are punished according to the law. This is fair.

-My aunt: My aunt is a very capable and independent woman. She runs her own travel agency business, which is doing very successfully, and works very hard. She just bought 4 large pieces of land in Thailand and is currently having villages built in them. She is an honest businesswoman and she fires her workers if they are dishonest to her. She is generally being treated fairly in society.

-My grandma: My grandma took care of my aunt since birth. Now she is very old and can't take care of herself. She lives with my aunt and my aunt takes care of her in return for the years my grandma took care of my aunt. This is fair.

-My friend Aly: I have a friend named Aly. She goes to school as a senior and gets decent grades. If she does something wrong, she will recieve consequences. She is given all the same opportunities as men. This seems fair.

-I can name more than a hundred people who are women and are being treated fairly in their society.

-Driver's License: Women can get drivers licenses, just like men. This is fair.

-Scuba Diving License: I recently got my scuba diving license in a trip to the beach. My friends mom also got it, even though she's a woman. This is fair.

-Bungee Jumping: My friend recently went bungee jumping a few days ago. His girlfriend went with him, and she was allowed to bungee jump too, even though she's a woman. They also charged the same price regardless of gender. This is fair.

-Air Softing: I went air softing with my buddies four weeks ago. I saw women there. They are charged the same price as men. This is fair.

-Presidency: A woman can become a president, just like a man. The current president of Thailand is a woman. This is fair.

-Martial Arts: A month ago, I went to a Muay Thai club and watched a bunch of fights. There were women fights, just like men. This is fair.

-DDO: Women are allowed to join DDO like men. They are also allowed to vote and post. They are treated equally. This is fair.

================================================================================

Addendum:

-All my examples above show that women are not being treated unfairly in their societies.

-Pro has not met his BOP yet because he has not accounted for every women in every society yet.

-The second part of his syllogism that claims we must change is negated, because I have shown how women are being treated fairly in societies. For example, the 30 basic human rights that are used world-wide. Changing this human rights list can possibly result in more women being treated unfairly



Sources:

[1] http://www.archives.gov...

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...

[3] http://www.sto.ca...

[4] http://www.samaritanmag.com...

[5] http://www.askmen.com...




Debate Round No. 2
WilliamsP

Pro

Rebuttals
As I read my opponent's argument, I shook my head often, rolled my eyes, and sighed. I started this debate to specifically be about the United States, but my opponent insists that I must "account for every women in every society." Here is what I said: "I would like to debate the issue of sexism regarding females. I believe that women are being treated unfairly in this society and that reform is a moral obligation." Now, I apologize for not specifying that I was talking about the United States, but how does "this society" mean "every society"? I sincerely apologize that I did not specify that, but I would like to make my opponent and the viewers aware that this debate is ONLY about the United States. I should have started the debate different and, again, I apologize, but I will remind my opponent one final time that this debate is solely about the United States of America. He says that, "[a]fter the debate has been accepted, the challenger has the freedom to interpretation, as long as his or her interpretation is valid." When comparing my opponent's interpretation to the original intention of the debate, he has clearly misinterpreted it. He also says, "it is a violation of conduct to change anything or make any modifications." It is not a violation of conduct to do so if one debater has made a misinterpretation and the other debater clarifies what he meant. I now intend to refute my opponent's points and to defend my argument.

My opponent provides plenty of examples showing how women are being treated fairly. However, they do not prove that women are ALWAYS treated fairly. I have made plenty of points in my argument, such as the quote from CBS saying, "women still earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. For African-American and Hispanic women it's even lower: 64 and 54 cents, respectively." My opponent cannot deny that sexism is still a part of the American society. I will not deny that women are, in some ways, being treated absolutely fairly, but they do not earn as much as men do, they do not have some of the same opportunities as men do, they do not have the same chance of success as men do, et cetera. Women have great potential and these examples of sexism restrict women from embracing and taking control of that potential. I hope my opponent can see that.

My opponent makes examples of women he knows. However, they are only three of billions. These arguments are not appropriate. I am glad to see that these women are being treated fairly, but many women are not as fortunate as they are, sadly.

In conclusion, my opponent has misinterpreted me and must acknowledge that. Again, I sincerely apologize for not specifying that I meant the United States. All I ask is for my opponent to see that. I do not ask for a concession or an apology. I simply ask for acknowledgment. I am sorry, but I believe I have made enough apologies now. I believe it is time for my opponent to make a statement. Until he acknowledges my points, his points, I believe, are invalid in this debate.

Defro

Con

My case for this round would be more clear if I provided counter-rebuttals first before my rebuttals of his arguments in round 2.


Counter-Rebuttal:


"I would like to make my opponent and the viewers aware that this debate is ONLY about the United States."

-No it isn't. You meant for it to be only about the United States, but you did not specify, so this debate is not only about the United States.


"It is not a violation of conduct to do so if one debater has made a misinterpretation and the other debater clarifies what he meant."

-I did not misinterpret. My interpretation is completely valid for the resolution and the debate. Therefore, I interpreted the debate properly, I just misinterpreted you.

-It certainly is a violation of conduct. Further clarifications that contradict your conternder and viewer's initial interpretation is certainly a conduct violation.

-For an example, if I started a debate titled: "We should not have any organs." and you accepted and your main argument is: "We should have organs because they keep us alive." and then I reply by saying: "Oh, I'm sorry. You misinterpreted. I meant organs as in the instrument, not the body part. Therefore your argument is invalid." This is clearly a violation of conduct on my part because I did not clarify properly and ended up tricking you.


"However, they do not prove that women are ALWAYS treated fairly."

-I don't need to prove that women are always treated fairly. I have no BOP, BOP is on you. My job is simply to prove that women are not ALWAYS treated unfairly.


"I will not deny that women are, in some ways, being treated absolutely fairly."

-Pro has conceded.


"My opponent makes examples of women he knows. However, they are only three of billions. These arguments are not appropriate."

-They are certainly appropriate, they disprove your resolution. I concede that I have committed the cherry-picking fallacy [1], but so have you. Furthermore, the fact that I personally know them makes my sources more reliable than yours.


"I am glad to see that these women are being treated fairly, but many women are not as fortunate as they are, sadly."

-Pro has conceded yet again that women are not always treated unfairly.


"In conclusion, my opponent has misinterpreted me and must acknowledge that."

-Yes, I openly acknowledge that you did not properly clarify, thus making me and viewers (such as kbub) misinterpret you, but nevertheless, my interpretation is completely valid for the debate.


"I do not ask for a concession or an apology."

-And I do not intend to concede or apologize, I have not wronged you.


"Until he acknowledges my points, his points, I believe, are invalid in this debate."

-Pro has committed another gruesome violation of conduct. This is clearly a threat. Acknowledging the fact that you did not properly clarify has no relevance to my points in this debate. Yet, Pro threatens that my points are invalid unless I acknowledge that he made a mistake. Okay then, I openly acknowledge that Pro has made a mistake.




Rebuttal to Pro's Arguments in Round 1:


"Women still earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. For African-American and Hispanic women it's even lower: 64 and 54 cents, respectively.....We are stereotyping when we claim women are unable to work, are weak, and are of less value than men. Why should we pay them less than men when they are working the same job, the same work hours, the same conditions, the same education, and the same experience?"

-Pro is drawing false assumptions from his provided evidence. All his provided evidence proves is that women get paid for their jobs less than men. No where was it said that they are paid less for working the same job, the same hours, conditions, education, and experience! That is absurd! If a woman has the same job as a man and works the same hours, they will get paid the same! However, women generally get paid less because they don't have the same jobs as men.

-My mother gets paid significantly less than my uncle not because her employers are sexist, but because she worked at a fabric company and my uncle is the agent for Coca-Cola in Burma!

-This is because my uncle is more educated and experienced than my mother. About a few decades ago, women worked lower-paying jobs than men because they were generally less educated. This is not unfair, it is completely fair. If an employer has to choose between two people, it would be logical and fair for him to choose the one more educated.

-However, nowadays, the number of females and males being educated are pretty much the same, so there is less of a distinction. My cousin (who's a girl) for example, is training to be a plastic surgeon, which decades ago were mainly men.

-I fail to see how this is not fair.


"I have now proven this point using two sources. It cannot be refuted."

-And I just refuted it. I acknowledge the validity of your first source, but will ignore your second source completely. I would like to remind Pro that when looking for sources, it is generally more reliable to search for sources written by more neutral writers. "Magsforwomen" is not a reliable source when discussing to issue of sexism. There is a whole website dedicated to proving that aliens have infiltrated our planet and taken human form. That's not a very reliable source is it?

-Furthermore, I know for a fact that that source is either wrong or blindly biased. Just because you have a source doesn't mean it's right. We spent a whole hour discussing this issue in my economics class. As it turns out, organizations do not pay lesser salary, give lower increments and reduce the growth potential of their women employees in comparison to their male employees. There are even organizations owned and run by women. If an organization gives more growth potential for their male emplyees than female emplyees (which they do not), it is strictly and genuinley because that particular male is actually doing a better job than the female.


"Magforwomen.com continues with the following statements"

-You are basing most of your arguments off of a biased source. I'm not acknowledging them especially since I know for a fact that one of their statements is false.


"Here is an example: A man graduates from Harvard at the top of his class. A year later, a woman graduates at the top of her class from the same school. They both have the same education, experience, and credentials. Both apply for the same job. The man, more than likely, will receive that job simply because he is a man."

-Pro is making up examples to support his claims. I could just as easily say: A man and women graduate with equal education, experience, and credentials, but when applying for a job, the woman was selected because she is a woman.

-But instead of making up an example, I will provide a real example from my mother. She recently applied for a job with a Taiwanese fabric company and there was another man applying for the same job. However, she was the one accepted rather than the man.


"What if it were your daughter or your wife that endures this sexism? What if a great friend of yours goes through this? You will surely sympathize with them, support them, comfort them, and take action."

-But they don't endure this. You know why? Because society is no longer tolerant of sexism. Laws were made decades ago in several countries, abolishing sexism, and now my female friends do not endure sexism. Therefore we shouldn't change this. It's already good as it is.


Addendum:

-Con has not met his BOP
-Con has made more violations of conduct, even threatening me.
-He has not effectively argued any part of his two part syllogism.



Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(fallacy)



Debate Round No. 3
WilliamsP

Pro

A real man has the ability to concede to his opponent when he is obviously losing. As I did not specify what I meant in the first round and, according to my opponent, violated conduct, I believe it is reasonable for me to concede. I should have specified what I meant in the first round, but I did not. I apologize. Therefore, I urge the voters to vote in favor of my opponent.
Defro

Con

A real man is also at least 18 years old :)
You're getting there kiddo.

I enjoyed the debate, thanks.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 2 years ago
PeacefulChaos
Hopefully, this debate can be set up again, because it really is an interesting topic.
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
I see my error. I apologize.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
I have not misinterpreted the debate. I have misinterpreted PRO, because he COULDN'T CLARIFY PROPERLY.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
@Magistrate

when was semantics used?
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
@WilliamsP

It's your own fault if your resolution is misinterpreted because that means you did not make it clear enough. I wasn't the only one who misinterpreted, kbub too. I didn't ruin jack sh*t. You said that round 2 is for arguments and no rebuttals. I complied :P.
Posted by Magistrate 2 years ago
Magistrate
Semantics OH NOOOOO
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
But I shall get over it and simply finish the debate and watch my opponent get all the votes.
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
I, as the creator of this debate, set up a specific structure I believed was proper. My opponent misinterpreted me, which ruined EVERYTHING!
Posted by Dennybug 2 years ago
Dennybug
williams round 3 isnt even an argument. You just chucked the whole debate. you F**ked up with the set up. you can't just change it. you have to argue by what you said. Since you didn't clarify. Con made the interpretation and it is perfectly valid.
Posted by softball_32 2 years ago
softball_32
If a guy ever treated me wrong i would punch him in the face
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 2 years ago
jamccartney
WilliamsPDefroTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Each opponent did well, but Pro asked for voters to vote in favor of Con, so I will give him argument points.
Vote Placed by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
WilliamsPDefroTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used biased sources and didn't refute Cons arguments instead made baseless assumptions .