Poverty Exists Only for Men
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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."
i think its just if all opponetns finished the debate
how do you choose quality debates and how come this is one?
Where are the stats for that? North Korea is closed for all resaerch
I don't know about all the policies, but in North Korea, poverty exists on 99% of the population, female or not.
Spam be gone
I accept your admission that you were wrong and acknowledge your resulting backpedal away from your previous bold claim.
you are not interested in the truth at alll
i dont care about this debate
"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.
You were the one who iniated it, talk about pointless debating
"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
I accept your admission that you were wrong and the resulting unwillingness to debate.
LOL, I am not accepting any more debates, it is pointless
Dispostion-the power to deal with something as one pleases.
Synonym-at the disposal of
Men are disposible for society and must be odebient
Male obedience to the system
"everyone I don't like is an incel"
Whiteknight
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/011/869/internet_white_knight_colored_4350.jpg
incel
What does the word disposition mean then, kiddo?
That is wrong,
"You want male disposition"
I can only assume you don't know what the word disposition means since that is a nonsense sentence that has no meaning.
Nah Im good, you are of course a feminist, you want male disposition, most people are feminists
I am a feminist? Laughable. Want to debate that topic too Frankie?
The resolution would be "Discipulus_Didicit is a feminist". Present a reasonable definition of the word feminist and I will set the debate up right now.
feminist
Ah, yes. I missed your misdirection. Sue me. I hesitated to vote on this debate, but will consider more and engage a vote.
I would agree that the definition of "rare" which I proposed is way more lenient than would be fair. These definitions definitely favored my opponent. As I said in round 2:
"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."
In theory the higher the number of exceptions allowed the easier this debate is for pro so I intentionally gave the definition a ridiculous value specifically with the intent to show just how ridiculous pro's claim is.
The parameters [definitions] offered for this debate, specifically with regard to "rare" is far too excessive at 30% to ave any meaning relative to the overall premise that only men are affected by poverty. For example, in an entirely different matter of an issue affecting a portion of the population, "rare" is defined as far less than 30%. According to NIH https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/pages/31/faqs-about-rare-diseases - a rare disease in the United States is one affecting 200,000 people, or less, or 0.06% of the population. Not that disease and poverty are necessarily related, but that the condition of "rare" is considered so much less. Another factor: what is the most rare eye color? According to the World Atlas, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/only-two-percent-of-the-worlds-population-have-this-trait/ar-BBT3LTR
only 2% of the world's population has green eyes. That's rare. 30% is not. Therefore, on its face, I consider this debate as useless by definition.
I accept Frankie's admission that he was wrong and his subsequent forfeit.
Really? You are actually okay with all the definitions I laid out?
I assume you meant pro, in which case I may agree lol.
This is a fine example of a debate which needs more grading categories. Con deserves some points for the balls of accepting the challenge.