Instigator / Con
34
1596
rating
9
debates
88.89%
won
Topic
#1802

Poverty Exists Only for Men

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
15
0
Better sources
10
8
Better legibility
5
3
Better conduct
4
3

After 5 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...

Discipulus_Didicit
Parameters
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
Contender / Pro
14
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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).

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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."