Instigator / Con
Points: 34

Poverty Exists Only for Men

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
Discipulus_Didicit
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Society
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 14
Description
This debate title is a copy from a statement which Frankie has made in the fourms. This debate is a challenge to Frankie to back up this claim, a challenge which he will very likely decline due to the fact that he knows not-so-deep-down that the statement he has made is a false one.
Round 1
Published:
Since I didn't lay out any definitions in the description due to genuinely believing that Frankie would decline the challenge I will do so now. Frankie is free to dispute any of the following definitions in his round one, if he does so it is up to the voters to decide what definitions to accept and also up to the voters to decide what impact if any that gas on the debate outcome. Obviously if these definitions are not disputed in Frankie's round one then it is fair to assume that he accepts them.

Please note that though Frankie has the right to dispute definitions (because he is only seeing these definitions after accepting the debate) he does not have the right to change the wording of the resolution in any way (because he had the opportunity to review the resolution before accepting and also because the resolution is a direct non-paraphrased quote from Frankie himself).


Poverty - The state of living with an income which is less than the poverty line.

Poverty Line - the estimated minimum level of income needed to secure the bare necessities of life. This varies from place to place depending on costs of living.

Exists - To ascribe a certain quality to (in this case, the quality of poverty).

Only - Exclusively, with exceptions being non-existent or rare.

Rare - Existing in fewer than 30% of cases.

Men - Adult male humans.

Assuming the voters accept these definitions the proposition would seem to be negated if Frankie is unable to demonstrate that out of all people in poverty less than 30% are not men. I will thus turn the argument to him in order to afford him the opportunity to perform said demonstration or to dispute the definitions above.

Published:
women control 80% of spending

What is the gender breakdown of those receiving welfare? Women are more likely to seek help through welfare programs. Close to 25% of those aged 16 to 64 were receiving benefits as of 2011. Among men in the same age range, slightly more than 19% received some type of welfare.-https://www.creditdonkey.com/welfare-statistics.html
Women get all the welfare and then spend it away, this was my main argument, not that poverty only exists for men but that a society never lets a women fail

Women make up 38.5% of all income but control 75% of domestic spending, women on average spend 90%MORE MONEY THAN THEY EARN. -If a women IS in poverty, she used welfare benefits to get it.

If women spend more money than earn it, obviously society doesn't want them to fail and will grant them lower crime sentences and more benefits, this is why true poverty exists for men, because they work longer but dont get a pussy pass

Round 2
Published:
Introduction

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.

Conclusion

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.

Published:
Dude it was satire, my main point is that society tries it damm hardest to let women not fail

But I will happily take this L 
Round 3
Published:
I accept Frankie's admission that he was wrong and his subsequent forfeit.
Published:
I was not wrong, it was satire
Round 4
Published:
I accept Frankie's admission that he was wrong and his subsequent forfeit.
Published:
It was SATIRE, its want even my main point if you look back at the post

Feminist
Added:
--> @User_2006
Where are the stats for that? North Korea is closed for all resaerch
Contender
#28
Added:
I don't know about all the policies, but in North Korea, poverty exists on 99% of the population, female or not.
#27
Added:
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Spam be gone
Contender
#26
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
I accept your admission that you were wrong and acknowledge your resulting backpedal away from your previous bold claim.
Instigator
#25
Added:
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
you are not interested in the truth at alll
i dont care about this debate
Contender
#24
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
"because I exageretd it, disc_dic is not interested in exaggerations"
Pointing out that your opponent is only interested in the truth is usually not considered an insult.
Furthermore the definitions we agreed to allowed more than enough room for exaggeration as fauxlaw has already pointed out. The fact that women experience more poverty than men means that you were wrong, it doesn't mean I cheated.
Instigator
#23
Added:
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
You were the one who iniated it, talk about pointless debating
Contender
#22
Added:
"It appears that Pro is arguing that poverty is worse for men because society prioritizes the fiscal health of women over men. This point is largely irrelevant to the resolution, so ultimately Pro fails to offer an ounce of evidence which supports the notion that "Poverty Exists Only for Men."
because I exageretd it, disc_dic is not interested in exaggerations
Contender
#21
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
I accept your admission that you were wrong and the resulting unwillingness to debate.
Instigator
#20
Added:
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
LOL, I am not accepting any more debates, it is pointless
Contender
#19
Added:
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Dispostion-the power to deal with something as one pleases.
Synonym-at the disposal of
Men are disposible for society and must be odebient
Contender
#18
Added:
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Male obedience to the system
Contender
#17
Added:
--> @LittleCookie08
"everyone I don't like is an incel"
Contender
#16
Added:
--> @LittleCookie08
Whiteknight
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/011/869/internet_white_knight_colored_4350.jpg
Contender
#15
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
incel
#14
#5
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I am confused why no one else has voted based on concession but to me this was a conceded debate where the other side explicitly defended taking their false stance by saying it is satire (over and over again).
#4
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Argument: Pro's sole, legitimate first round argument was contrary, not favorable to the position held in the debate. Each subsequent round insisted a point that, on its own merit, failed to be justified. Satire has naught to do with whether a position held is right or wrong. Satire does not justify right or wrong. Whereas, Con argued his position with forthright debate points. Con is awarded the points.
Sources: Pro offered a single source, and that source quoted four to eleven-year-old data. Con offered two sources, one of newer data, but the other was merely to support definition of a wrongness concept that had little to do with the subject at hand. I call this point a tie on relevance.
S&G: On the basis of greater volume to assess spelling and grammar, the points go to Con
Conduct: Pro's insistence on a point of debate style [using satire] having naught to do with the subject, and indeed without evidence that the point had merit, point goes to Con.
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
It appears that Pro is arguing that poverty is worse for men because society prioritizes the fiscal health of women over men. This point is largely irrelevant to the resolution, so ultimately Pro fails to offer an ounce of evidence which supports the notion that "Poverty Exists Only for Men." Con was able to prove that women comprise more than 50% of people who are in poverty. Con even flips Pro's argument against him by pointing out how welfare goes to poor people and people in poverty are also poor. Meaning that if women are more likely to receive welfare, then they're obviously more likely to be poor than men.
In conclusion. Con's claims refute the notion that "Poverty Exists Only for Men." Pro never attempts to argue in favour of the resolution, and as a result, Con must win the arguments point.
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Weak effort by PRO- hard to understand why PRO engaged in the first place. PRO accepts the debate with the thesis defined, refutes own thesis in the first sentence (19%+ men on welfare) and then denies that thesis in the second sentence: "Women get all the welfare and then spend it away, this was my main argument, not that poverty only exists for men but that a society never lets a women fail." PRO seems to be concerned that women spend more of the family budget than men although men earn the lion's share of that budget. The dynamic is instantly explained by the division of unpaid labor within the household- child raising, grocery shopping, cleaning, maintenance, elder care, etc., but PRO never addresses this primary, essential consideration. It's like complaining that a male duck has to collect all the larvae and seeds while the female just hangs around the nest all day. Poverty and public policy hardly enters into consideration at the level PRO is arguing. By R2, PRO argues that
(1) his claim is satirical in intent (which the absence of any humor or irony refutes) but also
(2) that society" tries it damm hardest to let women not fail" (without any evidence to support this empirically false claim) but also
(3) PRO concedes
rough.
Arguments to CON.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
BoP is on pro, and he never tries to support the resolution. A little use of the no true Scotsman fallacy, but ultimately a concession that women also experience poverty (even if unable to fail in the same way as men, as pro asserted). Con on the other hand uses statistics to show that women make up over half living below the poverty line.
Conduct for concession. Exceptional positive conduct is also noted for accepting this impossible challenge, in addition to complimenting con with his final word on the debate "feminist."