The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

gender equality is achievable.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 988 times Debate No: 98087
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




gender equality can never be achieved.


Ok so since con has failed to structure the debate I will do so. Burden of proof is on con to prove that the genders are not equal using my definition of equality. First round is simply for acceptance and no new arguments in the last round.

Equality the quality of being fair and impartial

So con has to prove that women are not treated fairly in America and are somehow disadvantaged. I will be refuting their claims and making my own that women are not mistreated and actually may have an advantage in america. I look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1


its not at all about how one treats women.
i can make it by asking-' is the way same as how women treat men?' that might sound little xenoic.
and yes , totally agreed by your equality definition.
and thats what my concern is , i.e., whether the definition really follows.
i can simply make u through some fields where the inequality is transparent--cricket, no. of famous scientists, or enterpreneurs.
your probable next argument..thats not in our hand to have equal no. of male n female famous scientists. n yes , thats in nobody's hand. n thats the actuall issue here, though society gives nearlly equal opprtunitites, yet the results're not equal and thats the point where inequality starts and u go further, inequality broadens and widens.
next when u take up cricket thing..its simply because women cricket is not much interesting bcoz women have not evolved in a manner to play cricket and then u get a way towards history from here.
so basically i want to convey that no matter how you treat women or men , the inequality prevails due to inevitable reasons, something which is not in hand.
Hence gender inequality is something beyond our reach.


While men and women have different advantages, as they are different biologically, that is not what we are looking for here. We are looking for equal treatment among the 2. We are looking to see that women are not being discriminated against, in the job market and other places. We are not looking for 100% even treatment rather that each gets what they deserve.

If women made great scientific discoveries then they would be acknowledged, and in the past some have, like Marie Curie. I do not watch cricket so I cannot speak on that, but there are almost always female equivalents for male sports in America, and did you ever think that there is a reason that women are less successful at entrpenaeurship. Women tend to be more empathetic (1) which may lead them to not take the steps needed to make the important decisions when it could hurt others.

It can be reached by living in a free society. If we allow everyone to have a fair chance in life, which I think would be relatively easy to do. If we removed affirmative action, and college quotas and based everything in academia on intellectual merit then we would have equality. A lot of the inequality numbers are due to choice rather than societal disadvantages.
Debate Round No. 2


see..the difference in choice , you are talking about, is merely dependent on how differently individual is evolved.
and you would surely agree to the fact there was no equal treatment for women (in america as well) in the history.
that has created women to choose fields which are comparatively less honoured or less important because its there evolution what taught them stuffs and didnt taught many.
thats the reason why all the nice stuffs are majorly occupied by males.
so the history along with biology, leads to differentiate males and females on various grounds in such a way that we tend to picture males superier than females.


The choices that are made do not impact whether or not there is policy or discrimination. Whether or not women take advantage of this or not, the world is fair to them. In history, I would say that there was discrimination, but that has changed. Women have the right to vote, women are becoming the breadwinners of their households, and women are becoming top tier military members. Just because they think that they are in a box does not mean that they are in a box, they are free to explore the world, equal to men, in America at least. You say all of the nice stuff are occupied by males, but what about the fact that 92% of workplace deaths are males? And how come women never complain about the gender disproportion in jobs like garbage collectors?

All in all, I think that it is possible to achieve this by judging everything based on its merit and not looking at the age, gender, or race of the person producing it.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by C_e_e 1 year ago
I wished Con had taken the time to reflect and notice the dual interpretations for what equality could mean and chosen which of those meanings she intended for this debate. One meaning regards equal opportunity -- that there be equal treatment for men and women under the law. The second meaning entails achieving equal manifestations -- that fields tend towards equality with regard to amounts. Pro chose the first definition. Con was trying to argue that fields would never tend towards equal amounts of men and women. But, since Con did not specify this dual meaning, Pro seized the opportunity to pick the more favorable definition for his side and argue it.

With regards to spelling and grammar, Pro wins. The number of misspelled words were more numerous with Con. She misspelled you (u), and (n), and actual (actuall). She also did not punctuate most of her sentences properly, nor capitalise the first word of each sentence. Such things gave a very sloppy and rushed appearance to her side of the debate. As for arguments, those points go to Pro as well, one, for being astute enough to notice the dual meanings for equality and choosing the more favorable meaning to argue for. Secondly, the following points made by Pro were true and went unrebutted by Con. So ,they stood as relevant to his argument and remain unchallenged. Those points were that in the West women have equal opportunities, and they may even have legal advantages there as well. Con"s point about the disproportionate number of women who are garbage collectors is a strong one. But, I could not award it fully for arguments, since it was made in the final round of the debate such that Pro never had the chance to respond to it. But, she had the chance to respond to the other points, which were never rebutted and so stood.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by C_e_e 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-1 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: My RFD is given in the comment section.