Frankie has been afforded the opportunity to dispute the above definitions and has chosen not to do so. I will now construct my argument against the resolution around these definitions. After this I will address Frankie's points in round one.
Argument Against the Resolution
As I mentioned in round one the resolution is negated if more than 30% of the population of people living in poverty are not men. This is due to my very lenient definitions of the words 'only' and 'rare'. A stricter interpretation of the resolution would technically make my job a bit easier but the claim is outlandish enough that I think my job is easy enough as it is.
According to Statistica.com (the first source I could find that uses the same definition of poverty as that which Frankie has agreed to) women make up well over 50% of those living in poverty:
The only potential flaw with this source is that it only looks at U.S. poverty rather than global poverty, but this flaw only becomes fatal if Frankie is able to find a reliable source about global poverty which shows that shows women making up less than 30% of those in poverty globally.
Response to Frankie's Round One
In Frankie's round one argument he presents us with a classic case of what is called "fractal wrongness". This is a phenomenon which occurs when a multi-leveled argument is made which happens to be wrong on every level it is made. Those wishing to read more about this phenomenon may do so in the following link, though it has no relevance to this debate.
In order to demonstrate this point and provide a minor case study in fractal wrongness I shall begin by explaining why the lower levels of Frankie's arguments are incorrect then proceed to "zoom out" level by level and demonstrate that even if we assume the silly premises Frankie presents are valid his conclusion still does not follow. This will finish with a demonstration that even if his conclusion did follow it would not support the resolution of the debate, thus rendering Frankie's entire argument little more than an irrelevant tangent.
We begin with Frankie's opening statement that "women control 80% of spending". Frankie fails to even attempt to cite a source for this claim of his. He in fact later goes on to demonstrate that according to his own source women make up only about 56% of the population of people on welfare. This is directly stated within the quote box that Frankie cites. I am not even going to bother fact checking this statistics he cited because it contradicts his claim anyway. Lastly I would ask the audience to consider the following question: Who receives welfare in the first place? The answer is, of course, poor people. While not all poor people live in poverty (and those that do not are irrelevant to the debate resolution) all people in poverty are poor. There is therefore a correlation between the two. Therefore if welfare money is meant to go to poor people and slightly more welfare money is going to women then what does that say about the proportion of women that are poor, and therefore the proportion of women living in poverty? Hmmm.
Despite the obvious weaknesses of everything Frankie has said so far however I would like to highlight the fact that nothing he has said is actually relevant to the debate resolution. Frankie has agreed that the definition of poverty is "living with an income below the poverty line". Even if women control 75 to 80 percent of spending (a claim which Frankie has not even tried to provide evidence of) was true this still does not lead to the conclusion that all women have incomes above the poverty line, which is the claim made in the resolution.
To summarize my response to Frankie's argument:
- Welfare spending does not make up all spending so even if we assume that women controlled 80% of welfare spending (they don't) the claim that they control 80% of all spending is still unjustified.
- Women control only about 56% of welfare spending, at least according to Frankie.
- Even if we assumed that the claim that women control 80% of all spending is true (it isn't) the claim that this means women don't live in poverty is unjustified.
- Frankie is literally arguing against the resolution with some of his claims anyway.
The voters are to remember going forward that Frankie was afforded the opportunity to dispute any definitions he may have had a problem with. For example if he believed that poverty meant "Needing welfare but not receiving welfare" he could have said as much (it would than be for the voters to decide whether to accept this definition over my own proposal). As he has chosen not to do so it is fair to assume that he accepts the definitions I have proposed. Therefore if my positive argument to negate the resolution is not countered using an argument which accepts these definitions then the resolution is negated regardless of any additional tangents by Frankie. If the resolution is logically negated the audience should vote con.