The Instigator
policy-debate
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
CABAL93
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Men and women should be equal

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2019 Category: Society
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 280 times Debate No: 122128
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

policy-debate

Pro

This is just an acceptance round but it goes without saying that men and women should be equal because neither is better than the other.
CABAL93

Con

In a way yes, However there is a lot of that is being thrown into this big term "equal". Men and woman are and should be equal in the sense that they have the same basic human rights to their own lives and ownership of property that they voluntarily accumulates. "Equality" is not justified when things like affirmative action, Equal pay etc. Is being argued.
Debate Round No. 1
policy-debate

Pro

I do absolutely apologize for my vague speech. My assertion is that there should not be any discrimination or change in pay/perception based on someone's sex or gender.
CABAL93

Con

I would not agree with that. Employers have no obligation to do anything for anybody. All that they do is adding one more option to people in their lives and people are free to choose this option if they want it, Or walk away. However It's not even a problem to begin with, Since all workers in the end gets paid in accordance with their actual level of productivity. If anybody gets paid less than their productivity then other employers have an incentive to offer higher pay to this worker. The market self regulates.
Debate Round No. 2
policy-debate

Pro

Employers absolutely have an obligation to do things for their employees and customers, That's what labor laws are for. Your points contradict themselves. You say that you do not agree that "here should not be any discrimination or change in pay/perception based on someone's sex or gender. " However, You say that "all workers in the end gets paid in accordance with their actual level of productivity. If anybody gets paid less than their productivity then other employers have an incentive to offer higher pay to this worker. " So you do concede my point. BASED on someone's sex or gender. That's the key word of my argument.
CABAL93

Con

I agree that according to the law employers have an obligation, But the law is wrong and should be abolished because it's an act of force against people that have not engaged in violent action against anyone. If an employer wants to offer different pay to different workers based on gender, Ethnicity or anything else he or she should have the right to do so. However it's in their self interest to offer pay in accordance with peoples level of productivity, Because if they don't somebody else will steal those workers with the offer of higher pay. What these discrimination laws does, Along with minimum wage laws etc. Is to hurt the people it is meant to help. If politicians says to an employer: " you have to pay that worker no less than this amount" what happens then is that the employer may not hire the person at all because he or she is going to lose money hiring that worker.

And we know also from studies that when you take into account number of hours worked, Vacation days etc. Wage gaps go away because the market MUST necessarily push all prices, Including price of labor towards market equilibrium, Where supply meets demand.

And to your original argument about neither men or women are better than the other, If this is the case then the market will set their wage rates at the same level, But at the end of the day it's only the employer that ultimately can determine what this rate is and what the worker is actually worth, If we believe that politicians can determine what labor is worth then socialism is the next step. But we now that socialism cannot work because politicians can never be capable of actually determining the right value of anything as we have seen in many socialist countries like Soviet union, China under Mao, North Korea etc. (Not Scandinavian countries, Which are more market systems than socialist systems).

At the end of the day i think we both want the same thing, Which is for all people to be paid their right worth. My position is though that the market handles this on it's own and all laws that seek to improve this process only end up hurting those people in question.
Debate Round No. 3
policy-debate

Pro

Both according to the law and basic human morality employers have an OBLIGATION to not discriminate against an employee based on their gender. The law should absolutely not be abolished. What does the fact that employers haven't engaged in physical violence have to do with anything? You are arguing that one sex is inherently inferior to the other and that they should be denied hard-earned money and benefits for that ONE sexist and misogynistic reason. Why should an employer be perfectly allowed to discriminate pay based on sex, Age, Race, Or anything else. YES an employer should pay JUST based on the worker's productivity NOT their race or religion or sex.

You cite "studies" for a ridiculous and outrageous claim and I challenge you to find a single credible and non-biased source that concedes with that. Yes, The employer CAN decide to discriminate based on sex but this argument is about the SHOULD.
CABAL93

Con

https://www. Bls. Gov/news. Release/atus. T04. Htm These are numbers showing that women on average work less than men. You can also easily find charts that show the different types of jobs that women and men tend to go for. Women tend to go for jobs with lower pay. When you factor in these elements you can see why women on average earn less than men. It has nothing to do with discrimination.

And i think you are very confused about how prices take shape in a market, Including the price of labor. Your entire discrimination perspective relies on the assumption that what ultimately determines somebody's wage is the generosity of the individual employer. "The employer pay men more because they just feel more generous when they have male workers and less generous when they have female workers". This is nonsense. Of course employers have an interest to make as much profit as possible, And paying wages reduces that profit, Regardless of whether the worker is male or female. What the employer wants is to get as much work as possible from the employee to the lowest possible price and the worker want's the opposite, Namely to work as little as possible to the highest possible price. Supply and demand meet at a certain level because if the wage is set to low then another employer will offer higher pay and if the wage is set to high then the employer can lower the pay without risk of the worker leaving for another employer.

The lesson of this is that the employer CAN'T discriminate against anyone without losing money. If he or she tries to pay any group or individual lower than his or her productivity then the worker is lost to another employer who has the incentive to offer higher because of that workers higher productivity. To illustrate this, Imagine a plumber that generates a value of 20 dollars an hour. That means that if one company offers this person a 5 dollar wage, Other competing firms can offer higher pay and still make a profit, Up to the point where it reaches 20 dollars. But imagine now that the government steps in and says to all firms that you need to pay that employee no less than 25 dollars an hour. What happens now is that nobody can hire that worker without losing money, So obviously they are not going to hire the worker at all. So what minimum wage laws and other laws meant to raise wages does is to hurt all of those people the most that it seeks to help. This is why these laws must be abolished in order to help the most struggling people regardless of what groups they belong to.

The world is not so simple that if only the government commands something like raising wages then that will happen. You must always ask the questions: What are the unintended consequences of my ideas? Does what i promote have negative consequences that are not short term but long term? Does what i promote have negative influences on people i did not consider in the case? Etc.

Study some economic theory is my suggestion and you will soon find why these ideas can never accomplish what they claim in theory or in practice.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Whattheheck 2 weeks ago
Whattheheck
Yeah I don't know what you mean by equal, Seems women can do everything men can do so whats the point of this debate?

Want to have a real debate? Post that women are equal in ability, You will get your debate.
Posted by Debater554 2 weeks ago
Debater554
Before I accept, I want to ask what you mean by equality. We are currently equal socially. If you mean as in men and women should compete with one another in things like sports events, That's completely different.
No votes have been placed for this debate.