Instigator / Pro
Points: 1

America Isn't A Sexist/Misogynist Society

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
oromagi
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Society
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 7
Description
America Isn't A Sexist/Misogynist Society.
(I will waive the first round.)
Round 1
Published:
Waive. 
Published:
thx, AKmath for instigating this debate.

RESOLVED: AMERICA ISN'T a SEXIST/MISOGYNIST SOCIETY

DEFINITONS:

AMERICA [proper noun]is "a short-form name for the United States of America." [1]

SEXIST [adjective] is "Unfairly discriminatory against one sex in favor of the other." [2]

MISOGYNIST [adjective] is "relating to or exhibiting => [3]

MISOGYNY [noun] is "hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women." [4]

BURDEN of PROOF

Wikipedia suggests:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo." [5]

In this case, PRO as instigator and challenger of status quo bears the entire responsibility of proof.  PRO has made no claim otherwise.

CON interprets the resolution to mean that PRO must prove that the people and institutions of the United States never discriminate against women.  To win this debate, CON need only demonstrate one clear example of American discrimination against women.

PRO's CASE

PRO has waived the first round without explanation.

CON's CASE

I.
  • PRO and CON ought to agree that discrimination against women has been diminishing in the US since at least the advent of the 20th century.
  • PRO and CON ought to agree that discrimination against women is less prevalent now than in say, any other decade in American history.
  • Nevertheless, inequality remains commonplace and examples are easily detected in American society.
II.
  • The World Economic Forum's 2020 Global Gender Gap Report gives the United States a middling score of .725 with 1 representing equality- ranked 53rd in the world- better than many big nations like China and India but worse than much of Europe, worse than Canada or Australia, worse even than Bangladesh, surprisingly. [5]
III.
  • The US Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that:
    • "In 2016, women who were full-time wage and salary workers had median usual weekly earnings that were 82 percent of those of male full-time wage and salary workers. In 1979, the first year for which comparable earnings data are available, women’s earnings were 62 percent of men’s. Most of the growth in women’s earnings relative to men’s occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. Since 2004, the women’s-to-men’s earnings ratio has remained in the 80 to 83 percent range."  [6]
    • and
    • In 2016, women comprised 46.8% of the US civilian labor force (although women earn more 57% of undergraduate degrees and 59% of master's degrees which should translate into superior labor force representation). [7]
    • PRO and CON probably agree there are factors other than sexism at play in these gaps although CON assumes that PRO will disagree that sexism is also a factor.
IV.
  • A 2018 Pew report on women in leadership found: [8]
    • 25% of US Senators are women
    • 23.4% of US house members are women
    • 25.5% of state senators are women.
    • 29.7% of state house/assembly members are women.
    • 18% of state governors are women.
    • 21.7% of Cabinet level positions are women.
    • 6.4% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women
    • 22.3% of Fortune 500 board members are women 
  • 0% of US Presidents have been women although women have been the majority of voters in every presidential election since 1964.
V.
VI.
  • Although arrest rates for women have been steadily increasing relative to men (2.9% from 2003 to 2012), men are still responsible for 75% of all felonies and an even greater percentage of violent crimes.
    • 2011 FBI arrest data documents:
      • Males constituted 98.9% of those arrested for forcible rape
      • Males constituted 87.9% of those arrested for robbery
      • Males constituted 85.0% of those arrested for burglary
      • Males constituted 83.0% of those arrested for arson
      • Males constituted 81.7% of those arrested for vandalism
      • Males constituted 81.5% of those arrested for motor-vehicle theft
      • Males constituted 79.7% of those arrested for offenses against family and children
      • Males constituted 77.8% of those arrested for aggravated assault [11]
    • According to US Dept. of Justice statistics, male perpetrators constituted 96% of federal prosecutions for domestic violence. [12]
VII.
  • The current president of the US was (barely) elected is spite of having been accused of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment by at least 23 women since the 1980s.  [13]
    • A 2005 video recording of Trump bragging about his predilection for sex assault went public just 3 weeks before the election without dooming his electoral prospects.  If we consider the potential elect-ability of any candidate credibly accused of raping dozens of men, with accusations confirmed by the candidate's own statements just weeks before the election- we may conclude that sexual assault on women is still considered less harm or violence than sexual assault on men or children at recently as 2016. [14]
    • A recent Supermajority/PerryUndem pool found
      • "Many voters have negative associations between President Trump and women.  The survey went into the field soon after President Trump faced another allegation of sexual assault. We asked in the survey whether voters think the president has ever sexually assaulted women.  Among all voters, 63% think that President Trump has “definitely (44%) or “probably (19%) sexually assaulted women in his past. About one in four (23%) says he “probably has not” sexually assaulted women. Fourteen percent of voters think President Trump has “definitely not” sexually assaulted women in past.  What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of President Trump and women?"
      • and also
      • Only 54% of anti-abortion voters believe that there should be equal numbers of men and women in positions of power in our society.[15]
  • A 2019 Ipsos poll found:
    • "When asked about having a female president, Democrats and Independents are themselves comfortable with a female president (74%), but believe their neighbors are less accepting (33%). However, Democrats and Independents are split in their opinion on whether a woman would have a harder time than a man running against Donald Trump in 2020, with only slightly more of those whosay they agree (39%) over disagree (26%) or neither agree nor disagree (28%) with the statement. Americans are also split on whether or not gender and sexism played a role in Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump in 2016, with about half saying it did play a role (49%) and half saying it did not (52%). Sentiments that gender biases did play a role are largely driven by Democrats (76%) and female respondents (54%)." [16]
VIII. CONCLUSION
  • Let's recall that PRO offered an absolute statement in the resolution: "America is not sexist."  PRO waived R1, foregoing the opportunity to qualify or redirect this statement.
    • Therefore, if READERS find that even one of CON's  examples show evidence of at least some residual sexism in American society, PRO's resolution stands as disproved.
CON looks forward to PRO's initial arguments in R2.




Round 2
Published:
First, I would like to thank oromagi (cool profile pic) for accepting this debate.

Alright now to the debate. 

Yes, I will agree with you that America was ONCE a misogynist society, but no longer...

II. The Gender Pay Gap is a complete myth. How could a reasonable person be able to deduce such a thing existed when the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963! Paying people different wages based on their sex (or gender I guess in our modern society) among other things has been illegal since 1963. How could such establishments get away with this? I would then counter and ask "Why don't businesses only hire women if they can somehow legally pay them less?" The fact of the matter is that they aren't paid less. The Gender Pay Gap is an utter and complete myth. Yes, the gap exists, BUT NOT DUE TO SEXISM/MISOGYNY!!! The gap in money earned is created by women simply working in lower-paying fields, working fewer PAID hours, and taking the time off the raise children. The Gender Pay Gap has been debunked so many times I can't believe you'd use it as an example. 
Yes, women earn more degrees, but in more than likely low-paying fields. 

IV: This is another complete sham. Women are underrepresented in government because there are many more men than women that run for political office. If you look at the data in a way that is proportionate to how many women ran, a woman has the exact (difference was lower than the margin of error) the same win rate. IN some states like Pennsylvania and Utah, they had a higher percentage win rate than men. The CEO discrepancy is explained by the fact that very few women want to work 100 hour weeks and never see their families. The desire to be a high-paid powerful CEO is disproportionately held by men, which is why men are disproportionately CEO's. 

V. Sure, but men on average work 5 hours more in their paid jobs per week. So at the end of the day, both mother and father are doing around the same amount of "work". It's just that the men are getting paid (which also explains the gender pay gap).   

VI. This is simply not true. It's been proven countlessly that men receive harsher sentences than women. While men commit most felonies, the woman's increase in arrests could stem from a rise in non-felony crimes. 

VII. In that Hollywood Access tape TRUMP WAS TALKING ABOUT GROUPIES!!! If you take it in the context (discussing groupies) it was in which was wrongfully left out on TV, you can understand how they could have said such things. I agree with everything he said on that tape IN REGARD TO GROUPIES. Sure it wasn't his finest moment, but I can make even the Pope and the Dalai Lama (as well as you and of course me) look like terrible immoral sinners if I had a recording o every conversation they've had in their life. Sure many women have accused him of sexual assault, but why should I have reason to believe them over Trump. You're innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the accusers. Until a judge bangs his gavel, Trump is innocent regarding all these accusations from women. The Ipsos poll makes zero sense whatsoever. Why would one ask Democrats (who are now HATE Republicans) to describe non-Democrats/Republicans? If you want a true poll, don't rely on an opposing side's opinion on the other side to figure out what the other side actually believes and feels.   
Published:
thx, AKmath.  I remember googling your profile pic when you joined last Spring and being fascinated by the results.

RESOLVED: AMERICA ISN'T a SEXIST/MISOGYNIST SOCIETY

DEFINITIONS:

PRO has not objected to any proffered definition.

BURDEN of PROOF

PRO made no objection to my assignment of BoP, therefore we stand agreed that PRO bears sole burden.

I.

  • PRO & CON agree that the US was once misogynist. 
  • PRO reiterates his belief that there is no misogyny detectable in American society today.
II.

OBJECTION:  [partial refutation]
  • VOTERS will note that PRO inserts the word "pay" between "Gender" and "Gap" when referring to  the United Nations and the US Bureau of Labor findings as mythology.  
    • CON asks VOTERS to note the distinction between GENDER GAP and GENDER PAY (or WAGE) GAP
      • Let's define GENDER GAP as "the discrepancy in opportunities, status, attitudes, etc., between men and women." [1]
      • Let's define GENDER PAY GAP as "the average difference between the remuneration for men and women who are working. Women are generally considered to be paid less than men. There are two distinct numbers regarding the pay gap: non-adjusted versus adjusted pay gap. The latter typically takes into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience.  For example, someone who takes time off (e.g. maternity leave) will likely not earn as much as someone who does not take time off from work. In the United States, for example, the non-adjusted average female's annual salary has commonly been cited as being 78% of the average male salary, compared to 80–98% for the adjusted average salary." [2]
  • VOTERS will note that the UN was evaluating the GENDER GAP while PRO only addressed the a smaller subset of inequalities, the GENDER PAY GAP, and erroneously at that.  PRO ought to address gaps in opportunity, status, and attitude as well or concede those aspects as unequal in our society.
OBJECTION:  [internal contradiction]
  • VOTERS will note  that in one paragraph PRO both confirms and denies the gender pay gap:
"The Gender Pay Gap is a complete myth."
"The Gender Pay Gap is an utter and complete myth."
"The Gender Pay Gap has been debunked so many times I can't believe you'd use it as an example."
But also:

"Yes, the gap exists, BUT...."
"The gap in money earned is created by women..."
Pro needs to re-iterate for clarity whether he thinks Gender Pay Gap exists or not.

  • If there is no gap, PRO should retract the statement that begins, "The gap in money earned is created by women" as false.
  • If there is a gap, PRO should concede.
PRO argues:

Wage inequality has been illegal since 1963

  • PRO seems to be arguing that so long as a law has been passed against a thing, that thing can never become a problem.
    • Homicide has been illegal since Cain.  Is murder therefore not a problem?
    • PRO should retract this statement as unfounded.
"Why don't businesses only hire women if they can somehow legally pay them less?"
"When tech start-up founder, Evan Thornley, told a room full of conference attendees about his policy of recruiting women rather than men, he unleashed a firestorm. He hired women, he said, because they were “still often relatively cheap compared to what we would’ve had to pay someone less good of a different gender.” To illustrate the point he even showed a slide: “Women: Like men, only cheaper”. [3]

  • PRO's argues that the absence of businesses preferring a female labor discount disproves gap.
    • Since CON has demonstrated at least one business preferring the female labor discount, PRO's premise is shown to be false.
"The gap in money earned is created by women simply working in lower-paying fields, working fewer PAID hours, and taking the time off the raise children."

  • Again, this and "The gap is a myth" argument can't both be true.
  • PRO concedes that there is a gap, concedes that fields preferred by women are paid less.
    • PRO faults women for taking time to raise and care for the next generation of society.
      • CON argues that raising children is and ought to be a higher priority in America than the grubby remunerations of politics and commerce.  That women take a hit for prioritizing children demonstrates our collective failure to keep our priorities straight.  Making a healthy, happy, smart next generation is a defining quality of society.  Societies that fail to prioritize the next generation fail.  Women do their part and men take advantage of women's sacrifice by cutting a slightly smaller slice of the pie, which advantage PRO calls choice. CON calls that misogyny.
"women earn more degrees, but in more than likely low-paying fields. "
  • Science has shown that those fields are low-paying because women go into them.  "One of the most comprehensive studies of the phenomenon, using United States census data from 1950 to 2000," as women came to dominate some fields like biology wages fell 18%, traditionally underpaid female jobs like computer programmer grew considerably in salary and status as men became the majority of the field. [4] [5]
  • The UN and the US Dept. of Labor have acknowledged and documented a continued gap in pay, opportunities, status, and attitudes between men and women.  CON has 3 youtube videos that say otherwise.  VOTERS must decide which sources are more likely rooted in fact.
III. (see II.)

IV.

Women are underrepresented in government because there are many more men than women that run for political office.
OBJECTION: [circular]
In other words, there are less women because there are more men.

OBJECTION: [lack of evidence]
PRO asks us to look at the data but offers none.   Sounds like PRO is citing something specific but we don't get find out what.

  • A recent Georgetown University study found that 13% of Americans think men are more emotionally suited for politics than women. [6]
    • This poll alone suffices to refute PRO's case.
    • That margin is quite sufficient to prevent women from running in a huge number of districts.
"The desire to be a high-paid powerful CEO is disproportionately held by men, which is why men are disproportionately CEO's. "
OBJECTION: [sexist]

  • In a debate where PRO' jobs is to prove that sexism is dead in America, PRO (perhaps predictably) makes sexist remarks.  "(insert your class) just wants power more than others" is about as crass a generalization and undemocratic a legitimization for authority as CON can imagine.
  • Again, PRO loses the debate right here.   PRO has created new sexism in the text of this debate, so disproving that there is no sexism.
OBJECTION: [lack of evidence]
  • Got any youtube vids with some actual science to back any of this?
V.

OBJECTION: [sexist punctuation]
  • Be sure to note the scare quotes around work when women's childcare is compared to men's work (which gets no scare quotes earlier in the sentence).
    • "Similar to preceding a phrase with the expression "so-called"; [scare quotes] imply skepticism or disagreement, belief that the words are misused, or that the writer intends a meaning opposite to the words enclosed in quotes. [7]
It's just that the men are getting paid
  • ....and the women aren't, but PRO doesn't want to call that a difference in pay.
VI.
OBJECTION: [non sequitur]
  • CON is quoting FBI arrest stats to show that men commit far more crimes and injustices than women.
  • PRO's argues that unfair sentencing accounts for the disparity.  Perhaps PRO is claiming that men commit most of the violence because they are mad about the sentences they'll probably get for committing that violence?
VII.

If you take it in the context (discussing groupies) it was in which was wrongfully left out on TV, you can understand how they could have said such things.
  • PRO linked to the full tape on YouTube. 
    • Groupies are never mentioned.
    • When Trump brags about prior sex assaults his victims are described as "beautiful women."
    • The one woman specifically named is Nancy O'Dell- "I moved on her like a bitch," said our president.
    • PRO must either explain how O'Dell, a successful anchor of "Access Hollywood" qualifies as one of Trump's groupies or retract the claim as false.
Sure many women have accused him of sexual assault, but why should I have reason to believe them over Trump.
  • The Washington Post has verified 16,241 public and official lies told by Trump during his first 3 years in office, an average of 22 lies per day in 2019. [8]
    • That makes Donald Trump the most prolific liar ever recorded by human history.
    • By definition, any other human on Earth is more reliable than our president.  Unless some of Trump's accusers have also broken world records for lying, those women should always be presumed to be more plausible than the least reliable source of information the world has ever known.
"Why would one ask Democrats to describe non-Democrats/Republicans?"
  • The IPSOS poll cited by CON asked Democrats and Independents about their views and what they think their neighbors views were regarding female presidents generally.  PRO seems to have read a different poll.
VIII.

  • Let's recall that PRO has the burden to prove that the US is not sexist.  CON thinks PRO is demonstrating examples of sexism even with the text of this debate.
  • CON looks forward to PRO's R2 response.


Round 3
Published:
I. Regarding the gender pay gap: The gender pay gap DOES in fact exist, but NOT DUE TO SEXISM. 
II. Yes, homicide has been illegal since Cain, that is why murderers are put in prison. The government enforces it's laws, and since the government has not gotten involved in this issue (not even fully supported it as fact) must mean they do not think it is an issue. Had businesses been paying different wages due to sexism, the Fed would have gotten involved, but they alas have not. 
III. Businesses only hiring women - Conceded as you have brought forth one example 
IV. I do not fault women for taking the time to raise their children, I encourage it. I never suggested that they shouldn't do it, all I said was that they are taking a hit in their pay. 
V. When women start massively entering a field the average pay does go down, as the employer will (rightfully) exploit the fact that on average women aren't good salary negotiators and will more than often work for less than what they believe they're worth. 
VI. And what of the other 87% of people who don't have those views. And btw I somewhat agree with that 13 %. Men simply handle stress, long hours, and a constant barrage of (often mean) criticism better than women, essential qualities to being a good politician. 
VII. The desire to be a high-paid powerful CEO is disproportionately held by men, which is why men are disproportionately CEO's. - How is this sexist? I didn't say ALL, I said disproportionately. I don't know how someone could disagree with that statement as it's simple biology and human nature regarding men and women. 
VIII. No, The "work" applied to both men and women, read the entire sentence properly. I simply put it there because in this country we tend to associate "work" as only paid work and not parental/adult responsibilities. 
IX. Yes, men are getting paid for their extra office work, and women aren't getting paid for housework. This will logically create a discrepancy in pay. 
XII. He may be a liar, but the constitution nor law says your innocence until proven guilty right should be taken away even if you are a prolific liar. Trump is still the accused in this case and must be PROVEN as a person who committed sexual assault. BTW, why does our president, one person, somehow represent every man in the country? Even if he is a sexist/misogynist, it doesn't make the entire country that day. 
XIII. What does it matter what they THINK their neighbor's views are. I want to know what their actual neighbor's views are. Not a biased opinion. 

Published:
thx, AKmath.

RESOLVED: AMERICA ISN'T a SEXIST/MISOGYNIST SOCIETY

Let's recall that CON interprets the resolution to mean that PRO must prove that the people and institutions of the United States never discriminates against women (is NOT sexist to any degree).  To win this debate, CON need only demonstrate one clear example of American discrimination against women.  This may prove significant in R3 since PRO's Trump arguments suggest an unawareness of the terms of this debate.  Let's note that PRO forwent six opportunities to set terms:  Title, short description, long description, Rounds 1, 2, and 3.

I.
Regarding the gender pay gap: The gender pay gap DOES in fact exist, but NOT DUE TO SEXISM
  • So, not a complete myth as stated in R2?
  • So, we are essentially debating the SEXISM label.
  • Look, CON and PRO's sources agree women mostly make less because they take time out for childcare.
    • CON asserts that childcare ought to be a far higher societal priority or concern than many or even most jobs.  Any smart society prioritizes its children and those that fail to do so fail, simple as that.
      • In the past, we acknowledged that priority by leaving  roughly 3/4ths of the women at home.
      • 100 years ago the US devoted itself to the principle that" all men are created equal" includes all people and that women are people,  equal in rights including right of access to the workplace.
      • That means that if
        • we agree that childcare is important work and
        • we agree that the best childcare is left to parents and
        • we agree that job is more important to society than most, then we need to pay parents on leave some kind of wage to do that job. 
        • Because women give birth and nurse, women are often the preferable choice of gender and so unfairly underpaid.
      • I think we agree that this dynamic is the majority cause for the Gender Pay Gap, we seem to disagree on whether or not to call that dynamic sexist.
        • Women are defined by their ability to give birth, their biological imperative to care for children- what could be more SEXIST than devaluing the job of raising the next generation just because men don't do that job?
        • Here is one easily detected and commonplace sexism in our society.

II.
Yes, homicide has been illegal since Cain, that is why murderers are put in prison. The government enforces it's laws, and since the government has not gotten involved in this issue (not even fully supported it as fact) must mean they do not think it is an issue. Had businesses been paying different wages due to sexism, the Fed would have gotten involved, but they alas have not. 
?
III.
  • Concession
IV.
I do not fault women for taking the time to raise their children, I encourage it. I never suggested that they shouldn't do it, all I said was that they are taking a hit in their pay. 
  • Why?
  • OBJECTION- (contradiction) 
    • Pro states that he encourages women in society to raise their children
    • but also insists they take "a hit in pay."
    • Both of these statements can't be true- PRO should clarify which statement is true. 
      • If PRO clarifies that he encourages women in society to raise their children, how?
V.

When women start massively entering a field the average pay does go down, as the employer will (rightfully) exploit the fact that on average women aren't good salary negotiators and will more than often work for less than what they believe they're worth. 
OBJECTION: (sexism)
  • "women aren't good salary negotiators" is a sexist generalization.
  • "women work for less than what they believe they're worth" is a sexist generalization.
  • In my personal experience women are every bit as good as men at negotiation.
  • PRO fails to consider gender bias in the negotiation:
    • "Professor Hannah Riley Bowles of Harvard Business School, Professor Linda Babcock of Carnegie Mellon University, and Professor Lei Lai of Tulane University found that both male and female study participants were less interested in working with women who attempted to negotiate a better salary than they were with men who tried to negotiate a higher salary. The fact that women negotiators are generally less likely to initiate salary negotiations than men appears to be due at least in part to women’s awareness that negotiating could trigger this type of social backlash at the office."
    • "People are also more likely to lie to female negotiators than to male negotiators, researchers Laura J. Kray and Alex B. Van Zant of the University of California, Berkeley, and Jessica A. Kennedy of the University of Pennsylvania found in a new study. Women were lied to more often because participants viewed them as less competent than men and thus less likely to question their lies. Both men and women also were more likely to give male negotiators preferential treatment by disclosing hidden interests."
    • "Such stereotypes and biased treatment can significantly hinder women’s negotiated outcomes, putting them at an unfair advantage." [2]

VI.
And what of the other 87% of people who don't have those views. And btw I somewhat agree with that 13 %. Men simply handle stress, long hours, and a constant barrage of (often mean) criticism better than women, essential qualities to being a good politician. 
  • OBJECTION: (sexism)
  • "Men handle stress, long hours, and a constant barrage of criticism better than women" is a sexist generalization.
    • Bullshit
    • Let's see your evidence.
VII.
The desire to be a high-paid powerful CEO is disproportionately held by men, which is why men are disproportionately CEO's. - How is this sexist? I didn't say ALL, I said disproportionately. I don't know how someone could disagree with that statement as it's simple biology and human nature regarding men and women. 
  • OBJECTION: (sexism)
  • "the desire to be a high-paid powerful CEO is disproportionately held by men, which is why men are disproportionately CEOs."  is a sexist generalization.
    • In my personal experience, women are better at organizing and being in charge then men. 
    • Bullshit
    • Let's see your evidence that women are fine with seldom being in charge or seldom making gobs of money.
VIII.
"No, The "work" applied to both men and women, read the entire sentence properly. I simply put it there because in this country we tend to associate "work" as only paid work and not parental/adult responsibilities. "
  • my point, exactly.  What is the rational basis for calling childcare non-work?  If childcare is work than why aren't the child-caregivers paid?  Because they are they are exclusively members of the undervalued sex in our society.
IX.
Yes, men are getting paid for their extra office work, and women aren't getting paid for housework. This will logically create a discrepancy in pay. 
  • Where's the logic to undervaluing childcare?
X.
  • Extend VI. OBJECTION [non-sequitur]
    • What is the relevance of sentencing data in the consideration of gender bias in violent crime?

XI.

  • OBJECTION: (sexist blog)
    • VOTERS will note PRO failed to argue.  The blog itself is fairly incriminating reading.  I'd use it as another example of sexism in America but the author is in fact an Australian blogging from Australia about US politics.
    • Nevertheless, I'd encourage VOTERS to flip through the site to discover what PRO calls a reliable source.  Note the subsection devoted to FEMINAZIS.  Note the minstrel show blackface depictions of Barack Obama.  Note the animal adjectives used to describe Michelle Obama's physique.
XII.
He may be a liar, but the constitution nor law says your innocence until proven guilty right should be taken away even if you are a prolific liar. Trump is still the accused in this case and must be PROVEN as a person who committed sexual assault. BTW, why does our president, one person, somehow represent every man in the country? Even if he is a sexist/misogynist, it doesn't make the entire country that day. 
  • But Trump brags of these crimes doesn't clear, prideful self-incrimination rather abnegate the presumption of innocence.
  • Once Trump pays the victims hundreds of thousands of dollars in hush money, as Trump has been caught doing, the presumption of innocence is likewise abnegated.
    • Wikipedia advises, "A head of state (or chief of state) is the public persona who officially embodies a state in its unity and legitimacy."
    • Therefore, Donald Trump  and his propensity for abusing women and  and his falsehood represents you and I in a very real and official capacity- "We" in the majority, "We" as a democratic society officially approve of Trump's corruption because we retain the authority to reject Trump as head of state.
Out of time-  I'll answer XIII in R4.


Round 4
Forfeited
Published:
thx, AKmath.

RESOLVED: AMERICA ISN'T a SEXIST/MISOGYNIST SOCIETY

Let's recall that CON interprets the resolution to mean that PRO must prove that the people and institutions of the United States never discriminates against women (is NOT sexist to any degree).  To win this debate, CON need only demonstrate one clear example of American discrimination against women.

Let's note that PRO forwent seven opportunities to set, modify, or object to terms:  Title, short description, long description, and 4 rounds of debate.

Let's finish up that point CON didn't get a chance to respond to:



XIII.
What does it matter what they THINK their neighbor's views are. I want to know what their actual neighbor's views are. Not a biased opinion. 
  • The "neighbors think" question was designed to elicit a more accurate assessment of the local zeitgeist: [1]
    • "Robert Cahaly, senior strategist for the Trafalgar Group, made a name for himself in 2016 by being the only pollster to correctly show Donald Trump with a lead in Michigan and Pennsylvania -- two key states he carried -- heading into Election Day. (He did not poll Wisconsin, another surprising win for Trump.) Cahaly also showed Trump ahead in North Carolina and Florida, both of which he won, securing his improbable 304-227 Electoral College victory over Hillary Clinton."
    • "Cahaly managed to pick up support for Trump that all other pollsters missed by employing a unique method that sought to measure support from voters who'd been “inactive” in recent election cycles, as well as adding a question to his surveys designed to isolate the effect of social desirability bias among Trump voters – the concept that people won’t tell pollsters their true intentions for fear of being stigmatized or being politically incorrect."
    • "After asking voters who they were supporting in 2016, the pollster followed up by asking them who they thought their neighbors were supporting, Trump or Clinton. Cahaly consistently found a high degree of variance between who respondents said they were voting for and who they thought their neighbors were voting for, suggesting there was in fact a “shy Trump effect” at play."
    • "Two years later, Cahaly’s method once again proved solid. In one of the most polled races of the cycle, Trafalgar stood alone as the only polling firm to correctly show a Ron DeSantis gubernatorial victory in Florida – as well as Rick Scott winning the Senate race there. (Both narrow outcomes will likely result in recounts.)"
    • "Trafalgar also correctly predicted Senate outcomes in Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Texas and West Virginia (as of this writing Arizona remains undecided), making it the most accurate pollster of the cycle among those firms that polled multiple Senate and governor races."
    • "Even with Trump not technically on the ballot, Cahaly found social desirability bias playing a role. In the Florida and Georgia governor contests, some of that was attributable to race – often referred to as “the Bradley effect” – but Cahaly also found a “shy Trump” effect playing a role in places like the Arizona Senate race."
  • So, if a pollster interviews 10 neighbors on one block and all 10 say "Well, I am not racist personally but my neighbors are very racist" the correct conclusion is more likely that this block is pretty racist even though a 0% of interviewees admit to racism.
  • So, when we look at the Ipsos poll telling us that three-quarters of Democrats and Independents would vote for a woman  president personally but think only one-third of their neighbors (who are statistically more likely to also be Democrats and Independents) would vote for a woman president, we are forced to confront significant sexism even within the less sexist two-thirds of voters.  In fact, given the size of the sexist discrepancy, one is forced to wonder whether sexism was not the most significant factor determining the 2016 election outcome.
IX.  CONCLUSION

  • CON argues that  PRO's strategy of giving CON first and last word has worked to CON's favor, particularly given the R4 forfeit.  PRO never set up the terms of this debate and left the majority of CON's argument unrefuted.
  • Therefore, VOTERS need not get too philosophical before awarding points for argument:  if VOTERS agree that CON has shown that some sexism still remains in American society, then VOTERS should award arguments to CON.
Thanks again to AKmath for instigating this debate and thanks in advance to VOTERS for their kind consideration.

Added:
--> @oromagi
If you had no burden of proof, why did you provide a counterargument? Why did you provide a case which you then segmented into eight parts? As the contender, it is your contention that his position is either false or unsubstantiated. And even in your interpretation of the resolution, you never gave any context to how your citations informed sexism, discrimination, and/or misogyny.
If you were merely assuming the position of the skeptic, then you needed only to question his argument and its ability to substantiate his point, but instead you offered a case where not only did make assumptions contrary to his argument, "Nevertheless, inequality remains commonplace and examples are easily detected in American society," but you offered citations supposedly to inform these assumptions.
Had you demonstrated how these disparities informed a sexist, misogynistic, or discriminatory element in American society, you would've easily won this debate. Thus, I would take no issue voting in your favor. But since you didn't, and I should remind you that the standard I'm using is informed by your descriptions, it's difficult to vote for any other reason than conduct.
#12
Added:
--> @Athias
"It's a bit difficult to vote on this because neither of you met your burden of proof."
I deny that CON had any burden of proof.
I stated up front that," PRO as instigator and challenger of status quo bears the entire responsibility of proof." PRO must have been fine with that arrangement since there was no objection.
Contender
#11
Added:
--> @oromagi, @AKmath
It's a bit difficult to vote on this because neither of you met your burden of proof. While oromagi's argument was organized and quite pleasing aesthetically, oromagi never once related his citations to his descriptions of sexism and misogyny--and that's the whole point. Oromagi cited disparity for disparity's sake, but never explained how this was "unfairly" discriminatory or reflective of "hatred, contempt, or prejudice."
AKmath initially did a fairly decent job in pointing out that the mere disparities have "non-sexist" and "non-misogynistic" explanations, but he never really offered his own argument. Instead, he waived the first round in order to rebut oromagi and forfeited the fourth round. If I were to vote on this, oromagi would edge out because of conduct.
#10
Added:
"According to US Dept. of Justice statistics, male perpetrators constituted 96% of federal prosecutions for domestic violence."
HOWEVER, the victims are domestic violence are also men., so this doesn't mean that just women are affected by domestic violence
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
Setting aside the fact that The Guardian is reporting an advocacy group's interpretation of UK statistics rather than the actual stats, we should wonder why Dr. Franklin would refute a US Dept of Justice statistic regarding Americans with a UK stat regarding Brits.
Contender
#9
Added:
--> @oromagi
Sure I guess
#8
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
I am a believer in over-defining debate terms since interpretation is everything and many debates come down who won the definition of terms. Once, an opponent claimed that "chimpanzees are smarter than humans" meant that if even one chimp was smarter than the dumbest human than the statement was sometimes true and so true. Recently Trent0405 claimed in a debate we did that "Massachusetts is greater than California" meant that it was better to be an average citizen of Massachusetts and size, population, economy, acheivements, influence, so forth merited less consideration.
To you I say, "why aren't you defining America?" What if I argued America isn't sexist and then defined America as the Emmy award winning actress America Ferrera? That's a much harder argument. I'm convinced that the debater who sets the terms first and best has a real advantage.
Contender
#7
Added:
--> @oromagi
Oh, and also, why did you define America? It's not like AKmath will start pulling up statistics from Zimbabwe or something...
#6
Added:
--> @oromagi
oof
#5
Added:
--> @armoredcat, @Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin has asked me not to accept his debates but I guess he still feels free to toss rocks from a safe distance.
Contender
#4
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
Don't give the other side arguments during a debate
#3
Added:
--> @oromagi
"According to US Dept. of Justice statistics, male perpetrators constituted 96% of federal prosecutions for domestic violence."
HOWEVER, the victims are domestic violence are also men., so this doesn't mean that just women are affected by domestic violence
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
#2
Added:
--> @AKmath
I'm not going to accept this but I'd strongly recommend that you don't insult your opponent in your debate this time.
#1
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
1. Historical and lingering?
Both agree to the general themes, pro disagrees that it remains.
2. Sex Gap (points 2 and 3)
Con proves gap remains (even if better than many other places).
Pro does a rant denying the pay gap exists, then conceding that it exists, then again denying it exists.
Con reiterates that he was using a general gap, but proves that even by the adjusted gender pay gap there remains a disparity.
Pro concedes it exists, insists sexism has nothing to do with it, but fails to demonstrate what this mysterious other cause to be.
From there con has two more rounds and pro forfeits. No point in further review of this point when pro was already losing (not to mention how much he dropped).
3. Representation
Con shows that women are less represented in leadership roles.
Pro counters focusing on the smallest subset of those roles.
Con counters that pro failed to provide his data, and provides some of his own showing a study from Georgetown University which suggests 13% of the population are sexist about that one area.
Pro defends himself on one of the subpoints, leaving this wide area dropped.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. The magnitude of victory is just to wide on what’s already shown to merit reviewing the rest. Likely pro manages to show some small area where women have things better than men, which would be fundamentally overshadowed by the number and impact of the other areas already shown. Pro was obviously never trying to live up to his affirmative BoP.
Sources:
Using the arguments as an example: A well sources case, vs some YouTube videos. The Georgetown University one was particularly well executed, as it proved sexism in believes about women being emotionally unfit for politics, and more importantly using pro’s own cited lack of evidence against him.
Conduct:
Forfeiture.