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

Ban Bossy is a Ridiculous Campaign

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: 4/26/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,154 times Debate No: 53410
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




This debate will be about a topical campaign that, as not exactly the most 'recent' of them, still deserves a discussion about whether or not it didn't end up just being a ridiculous campaign to continue modern feminist propaganda with discredited sources.


First Round: Acceptance
Second Round: Opening statements/arguments
Third Round: Rebuttals/New arguments
Fourth Round: Rebuttals and closing arguments.

Let us begin.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you to my opponent for accepting my debate, so let’s get started.

A little background here, the ‘Ban Bossy’ campaign’s mission seems to be a bit difficult to really understand, so from what I am reading about it, this is the best way I can explain the movement. ‘Ban Bossy’ was created to encourage young girls to become leaders by removing the word ‘bossy’ because of how it is used to describe women who take the initiative to be in charge.

Now, there’s a great amount of hypocrisies and problems with this movement, so I am here to explain why it’s a ridiculous campaign (Based off of statistical evidence and personal opinions).

1. It makes women seem more like the victim than a potential leader.

By banning a word because it hurts the feelings of young girls, it completely takes away the fact that as a leader, you will be subject to criticism, including being called ‘bossy’, among many other negative terms that are a lot more offensive than that, but they seem to completely disregard that. Along with it, women are not the only ones who receive criticism, anyone regardless of gender who takes on a leadership role do put themselves in a position where positive and negative criticism are present.

2. The video itself and who's involved

In the primary Ban Bossy video with Beyonce, Condolezza Rice, and Jimmie Johnson, among a few other notable female celebrities, we see women who are well-known, brave, and powerful with the things they’ve done to get to where they are. Along the way, they’ve had to experience some level of criticism, as stated in the video. The thing is, what really should be addressed is how even with criticism, these women still went on to success regardless of what others said. That’s really what is powerful, and trying to physicially/figuratively ‘ban’ a word instead of what really needs to be focused on is just not the right way of doing it.

3. The sources themselves

On the ban bossy website, you will see a few ‘statistics’ that are on there such as ‘Between elementary and high school, girls’ self–esteem drops 3.5 times more than boys’ and ‘Girls are twice as likely as boys to worry that leadership roles will make them seem “bossy.”

Thing is though, there are findings within the studies that show these were cherrypicked, not to mention outdated. That being said, it’s just feminist propaganda that isn’t only misleading, but a bit hypocritical in itself when it comes to the people who came together to promote it.[1, 2]


I await your opening arguments.





First of, I define ridiculous as "causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable" as shown in
Now, onto the rebuttals:
1. It makes women seem more like the victim than a potential leader.
Okay, so how is this preposterous or laughable? Yes, you prove this campaign has negative effects, but bad effects does not always equal to being "worthy of ridicule or derision". In fact, ridicule is to "make fun of", but your campaign bans the word "bossy", in fact, limiting ridicule. You have only further proven my point.

2. The video itself and who's involved
Again, if the campaign is not successful, that does not mean it can get laughed at. The banning of alcohol was very unsuccessful. Was it laughed at? Of course not! The government tried to help its people, but everyone was too addicted. This is sad, somber, and perhaps even causing sobbing, the complete opposite of laughter.

3. The sources themselves
Finally, a point worthy of laughing. It would be pretty funny if I said "a user named 9spaceking said I'm credible, therefore I'm credible". Eh, eh? Funny, anyone?
Now, down to the serious business. You are basically saying that the bossy website had the texas sharpshooter fallacy.
However, it must be noted that a long time ago, when Wikipedia was still stuck in its uncredible nutshell, it commited this fallacy too. Is this ridiculous? No, this website had only begun and it's free, with nearly no one helping them. In fact, the lack of good articles caused many professors to gather together and revising Wikipedia, so that now, most of the articles are pretty credible. So, if the bossy website notes someone not accepting their information and many people complain, obviously the main "engines" of the movement would notice and try to search for other more credible information to back up their claim.
In conclusion, the bossy movement was not ridiculous at all. The third and strongest point my opponent made can only propell the people forward, as this failure can help everyone realize what not to do. I have rebutted all of pro's arguments.
Back to you.
Debate Round No. 2


I would say that my opponent had not followed the guidelines I set in place for what will be involved in each round, however it may have been kinda difficult to do it that way since we both are on opposing sides which would call for rebuttals, so let’s just continue from here.

Let me just clarify that the reason I say ‘ridiculous’ in terms of ‘worthy of ridicule’ or the verb form meaning ‘to make fun of’ is because the movement is really just a big joke. That’s all it really is. It takes a topical subject, takes celebrities to sponsor it that that within itself proves a bit strange due to the success of those stars, regardless of criticism, and tries to push an agenda to censor people when in reality, what should be done is to focus on girls still taking leadership roles and not let criticism or insults put them down so negatively. The punchline of it is that they are focusing on something that really should not be the primary focus, and ended up creating a feminist movement that is truly a first-world problem, especially because all genders can face such criticism.

My rebuttals:

1. It makes women seem more like the victim than a potential leader.

I already addressed the first part of your rebuttal by including the previous paragraph. I also do not understand what point you are trying to prove, especially with the fact that the ridicule it’s given is not within limiting it with the goal in mind, but with how it was portrayed and started.

2. The video itself and who's involved

I kind of see what you mean, but I’m talking about the video here and the people, not the movement entirely in this section. The thing about government involvement with this is that with topical subjects like ‘The Pay Gap Myth’[1] and the statistics involved with education and how women are actually doing better in academics[2], how is there a lack of any form of government involved that didn’t end up having them make a fool out of themselves by not looking at the entire picture? Also, how are you so sure that the alcohol ban being unsuccessful wasn’t laughed at?

3. The sources themselves

1. Yes, I am basically saying that the website used that fallacy.

2. You are comparing something to a source completely outside the conversation. Websites like this cherry-pick data to support their argument, and instead ignore the entire picture, which is why the statistics are an issue. Due to the arguments given in the video, it’s likely that ‘engines’ have promoted these statistics purposefully to further their agenda regardless of outdated or misleading information, and that’s the true issue about these statistics and why it contributes to this movement being a joke.


In conclusion, I have shown so far with my rebuttals and observations of why this movement is in fact a joke, and deserves the ridicule it is getting because of its misleading information for a cause that is topical.

Back to you, mate.




(K-12 Section of interest)


"The punchline of it is that they are focusing on something that really should not be the primary focus, and ended up creating a feminist movement that is truly a first-world problem, especially because all genders can face such criticism."
So.....this movement can help both genders, and it currently is supposed to help only one, and that is worthy of ridicule?? How?

The video: even if they didn't look at the entire picture, at least they tried!!

Misleading information: Well, it's not meant to be a joke. It's a serious movement that failed shortly, and that is not laughable. If the KKK failed to convey their message, that in now way would be laughable.
Now THIS is laughable:
Debate Round No. 3


Very short rebuttal amount to work with, but here’s what I will say.

1. You completely dismissed the rest of the paragraph and nitpick it to your advantage. The thing is though, as much as the idea of it can ‘help’ both genders, the entirety of the movement with its specific message including the banning of the word is what makes it a total joke and that it is open to public ridicule.

2. Well they apparenly did not try hard enough. You didn’t even provide a rebuttal to the entire section, including my mention of government ‘involvement’, nor the alcohol ban comment.

3. If a serious movement failed, public reaction differs and some may find it laughable, and some may not. That’s just the reaction of the public using different emotions. Also, your KKK comment was incredibly irrelevant and doesn’t contribute anything constructive to the conversation, along with the mention

In conclusion:

My opponent has failed to provide reasonable or constructive, let alone specific-topic based sources outside of definitions. I’ve already shown my reasoning for why this movement is a joke and is laughable, but have noted that public reactions do differ, but it’s still a reaction that is reasonable and supported by my arguments and sources that I provided.

Vote pro.


Oh, darn. I should not have accepted a topic I know nothing about and attempt to half-troll half serious-argue my way through.
I concede.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Rhodesia79 7 years ago
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall Pro made the better argument.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.