Instigator / Pro
0
1482
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

A woman’s place is in the home

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Voting points
0
3

With 3 votes and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

Theweakeredge
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
3
1730
rating
28
debates
89.29%
won
Description
~ 235 / 5,000

I have an open debate challenge for anyone who can change my mind
I believe that a womans place is in the home cooking cleaning and cuddling I want to be sure that I am right and so am open for discussion please try and change my mind

Round 1
Pro
Ok so it is the evolutionary norm for a woman to stay home  men want to spread our dna as much as possible so if a mam has sex with a woman and she dies he has failed so he would protect and provide for her and the child to keep them safe the women would notice this and take care of him in order to help him do his best at protecting and providing for her and her kid 


its just the evolutionary norm it’s how it is 
Con
RESOLUTION: A woman's place is in the home
POSITION: Con


OPENING STATEMENT:
It is an unfortunate truth that many still hold such a position as, "women's place is in the home", firstly, it's an awful thing to be this commanding of other people. Though I should not dwell on this truth of sexism in my opponent in an attempt to not poison the well, it is a truth nonetheless. The history of sexism is all around us, and sexism still permeates throughout our modern world. Among these discriminations is gender expectations or the expectations we put on one based on their gender; for example, men are expected to show less "vulnerable" emotion, and women are expected to be maternal and nurturing. 

These expectations, as one might guess, are not always, or in many cases, at all substantiated in any empirical truth, simply asserted as so by the society one lives in. Though it is the case that the process of birth does naturally evidence the nurturing of women, it would be the same if men were to birth, it is a process of biology, not a fact about one gender. It is simply the case that these stereotypes have been taken en masse to form unrealistic and presumptuous views about what women should do. However this question, "what women should do," is quite... troubling, to anyone who sees women as people, with agency, and not objects to do with what we wish.

Therefore, for the debate today,  I will demonstrate in no unclear terms that no.. a woman's place is not "in the home", a woman's place is nowhere (aside, from like, being a good person, but that's everybody) unless they choose it - but that fundamentally undermines the idea of women having "a place", such a definition as I have provided suggests that society has a right to dictate what a group of people ought to do beyond a basic societal contract of being decent people and all. Furthermore, Pro has provided no formal or linked definitions, so I shall provide them in the text below.


DEFINING TERMS:


INTERPRETING THE RESOLUTION:
In ordinary circumstances, I would attempt to jerry-rig the terms of the resolution for a more complete idea of what the debate is about, what each opponent is to, ideally, demonstrate. However, whenever researching applicable terms for the resolution I find myself an interesting conundrum. I could, quite easily, in fact, define the terms of this definition completely out of context and define my way to victory. That.. seems detestable to me, so instead, I choose definitions that I believed fit the intention of my opponent most strongly, even if they do not jive in the way my definitions usually do. 

To the actual interpretation: my opponent claims the following true - "A woman's place is in the home." That brings up, well, three questions. What does he mean by home? What does he mean by place? And what does he mean by a woman? Given his argument so far, I am inclined to believe that Pro is only discussing cis-gendered women, but fails entirely to think up about trans-women, as much as the term disgusts me (trans-women are women). For the sake of discussion, I shall take it that Pro is discussing cis-gendered women specifically, if my opponent has an issue with this, please contest it in the next round.

Furthermore, the definition of home and place, as home is much easier to place, let's use a fairly standard one - a place where you live, with your family additionally. For place, well that is much more difficult to ascertain as to what Pro is specifically referring to; however, given the argument regarded in round 1, it is fair to say that by "place", Pro does not mean relative position to - or location of. It is much more probable that Pro is referring to "where you ought to focus your energy" or something similar to it. Therefore, the interpreted resolution reads as follows: Cis-gendered women ought to focus their energy at the place they live.


Burden of Proof:
Therefore, it is my burden to demonstrate: A woman's place is not in the home; whereas my opponent must substantiate the opposite claim: "A woman's place is in the home". Shall my opponent fail to provide substantial reason as to avoid the definitions I've provided, they will have conceded to using my definitions in order to demonstrate their position.


CONTENTION I - SOCIETAL CONTRACTS.
The idea of the social contract dates back to the time Socrates; however, a man called Thomas Hobbs published the first fully written defence of the idea, and John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were the ones to actually coin the term, the latter being responsible for what it is known as today: the social contract [1]. Though more philosophers not of the modern persuasion, such as Immanuel Kant and John Rawls, would eventually chip in with their own ideas, today it is only necessary to evaluate the root of the thought. What is a social contract? The idea may seem, at first glance, overwhelmingly complicated, but is, in fact, quite simple to ascertain.

A social contract is a simple idea that humans will submit themselves to the rule of law because the society around them provides them sanction to live their lives, though I do admit this is slightly more Socratic of an idea than what the social contract is known today for, it is essentially what we want to discuss. The idea that people have political obligations to the society they live in because of how society provides individuals a defense against nature and unreasonableness. It is not quite far-fetched to say that most would not be fed, given drink, shelter, education, nor health care, if not for the society we live in - thus, as the contract goes, we have an obligation to follow laws [1] [2]

How does this relate to the resolution at hand? Simply - do women, particularly cis-women, have a political obligation to "remain at home". That should be quite obvious, there are no laws stating that women must remain at home, in fact, stated in the UN Universal Declaration of rights (On December 10th, 1948) in article two [3], and restated in the paper,  "Thirty basic human rights", similarly in the second right [4]:
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms, without distinction of anykind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, nodistinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional orinternational status of the country or territory to which a person belongs."
As such it would seem that not only that women do not have any political obligations, but that societies seeking to enforce this obligation would be breaking a fundamental human right, as all are agreed to have by the Declaration of Universal Human Rights. Of course, it is a truth that some societies do in fact not give women this same consideration; however, it should then be examined - on what ground do we have the right to demand that women, "devote their time and energy to the home", presumably in traditional housekeeping and childbearing roles. 

There are examples of certain groups having political obligations to society based on attributes, such as children's political obligation to obey their parents, this is due to the fact that, even with society's help, most children do not have the ability to survive and protect themself in the world. Therefore they rely on their parents to protect and raise them, the question is then, does something similar occur with women? One might argue that women have to stay home to raise their children; however, children would empirically benefit from having two parents to provide income for the family, as this contributes to a more stable and thus, more safe and nurturing environment for the child.

To put this contention more succinctly - individuals living within a society have an obligation to obey the laws of that society because the society provides resources and structure. Does this social contract have the right to put women "at home", and no, they do not - neither by human rights nor by utilitarianism cost-benefit - therefore - cis-gendered women have no obligation to be at home as a caregiver or a child-bearer - this is important because of the definition of place as provided in DEFINITIONS section of the debate: "what a person should do or is allowed to do, especially according to the rules of society


CONTENTION II - LIBERTY. 
Liberty is broadly defined as "the freedom to live as you wish or go where you want", for today's purposes the "freedom to live as you wish" part is what matters most. Let me paint a picture for my opponent and the audience: there is a person who is an exceptional artist, their art has the potential to change perspective and inspire beauty never dreamt of, would that person be required to create art? Well no, of course, they wouldn't. IF you support the right to freedom, THEN you support an individual to do something which might not suit their talents or suitability. THEREFORE, it would not matter if women were uniquely talented in being "homebearers" they would have no obligation to remain at home.

What if you don't support liberty? That's quite a simple answer if you do not support the liberty of other people, then there would be no reason to support your liberty. If one is to discount the ability to do as they wish of others, then others have no obligation to respect their liberty - thus - in order to even be apart of this conversation - to have the freedom of speech and discourse, you must support liberty. If you did not support liberty, then you would not be alive to have this conversation, as your freedom to live freely would be taken away. You see - to not support liberty is to take away your ability to even have this conversation - it is an axiomatic belief as far as humans go. 

So:
PREMISE I: IF have you the right of liberty, THEN you support an individual to do something which they aren't suited for
PREMISE II: You have the right of liberty
CONCLUSION: Therefore you support an individual's right to do something they aren't suited for

That means, that women's place is not "the home", women's place is wherever they freely decide it is - and they account for about 1/3 of all employed women are working mothers [5] - that means they choose for work to be one of their "places". Furthermore, the resolution: "A woman’s place is in the home" assumes that there is only one place for women, that being in the home, which directly goes against the ideas of liberty that I have just established. It is clear that the principle of liberty makes the resolution untrue morally as women don't have a singular place - their place is where they choose to go. 


CONTENTION III - THE COMPONENT OF NURTURING.
In the last contention, I discussed the idea that even if someone is suited to a task, that does not mean that they necessarily have to pursue it; however, that assumes that women are particularly suited for the task of "being at home" - how would one quantify such a statement? I could argue that belonging "in the home" would involve men-driven stereotypical things like grilling and mowing the lawn - would that also mean that women "belong in the home"? My opponent suggests that because it is our "natural instinct" to spread DNA, and for women to bear children (so sexists I don't even want to get into right now), that they should therefore stay home.

That would seem to suggest that my opponent believes that women would be the safest at home; however, it would not mean that the children are the safest - it is better to have two sources of income than one, this is simple logic, and it would refute Pro's argument; however I want to further drill into the ground to pro, that Women are not naturally more empathetic than men are, at least not on average. According to the APA's research - "Men and Women: No real difference" the following is the case [6]:

" A 2005 analysis of 46 meta-analyses that were conducted during the last two decades of the 20th century underscores that men and women are basically alike in terms of personality, cognitive ability and leadership. Psychologist Janet Shibley Hyde, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison, discovered that males and females from childhood to adulthood are more alike than different on most psychological variables....For example, after participants in one experiment were told that they would not be identified as male or female, nor did they wear any identification, none conformed to stereotypes about their sex when given the chance to be aggressive. In fact, they did the opposite of what would be expected - women were more aggressive and men were more passive."
It is simply not supported by any substantiated that women are more suited to the nebulous idea of "home", and the fact that there is no significant difference in personality would suggest that men could just as easily do the things that women provide - Pro has to make up this difference in order to demonstrate his position true. 



REBUTTAL I - THE NATURALISTIC FALLACY.
"The naturalistic fallacy is an informal logical fallacy which argues that if something is ‘natural’ it must be good." [E]
This is the flaw being made by Pro, suggesting that, because something is evolutionarily the case - that thing is what ought to be preferred. This is simply not the case, we are natural liars [7], but this does not mean that lying is necessarily good. In order to establish my point more thoroughly, I will quote pro's argument below:
"Ok so it is the evolutionary norm for a woman to stay home  men want to spread our dna as much as possible so if a mam has sex with a woman and she dies he has failed so he would protect and provide for her and the child to keep them safe the women would notice this and take care of him in order to help him do his best at protecting and providing for her and her kid "
A very scattered argument, so I will break it down into a more digestible plate:
PREMISE I: Males desire to sire offspring
PREMISE II: If those offspring are to perish, then those men have failed to maintain their offspring
PREMISE III: If women stay home, then they can protect the offspring
CONCLUSION: Therefore, women should stay home

This assumes quite a number of things - that the ultimate goal of women should be to A) do whatever a male wants, and B) have children, neither of these things have been demonstrated by Pro - they have been assumed to be natural (as Pro has no sources backing up his argument) - and even if it were the case that these things are natural, that does not mean that it is what a woman ought to do. Pro has fundamentally failed to support his resolution.


CONCLUSION:
Using a three-pronged argument, I have concluded that the proposed resolution: "A woman's place is in the home" is false, by the ideas of a social contract baring no obligation to women to stay home, by the value of liberty which allows women to have a place wherever they choose, and by the fact that women aren't any more suited for the role than men are - Pro has failed to provide any substantiated arguments, and I have rebuked my opponent's claims regardless of their baselessness. The state of the rounds is that I have fulfilled my burden of proof, while my opponent has failed to. 


SOURCES:
Round 2
Pro
  • Frist off you have failed to define what freedom is freedom in the classical christain definition is the ability to do what you know to be right 
  • next yay my first argument was kinda flawed but you still have not debunked it all you really did was put words in my mouth I never said women should obey men that’s silly 
  • next all your arguments seem to argue about obligations by law to society  but as one would note my appointment seems to have forgotten about  obligations because of decency like don’t be a jerk that’s not a law but you can’t be a jerk ok that’s just fact 
  • next you seem to forget that women are more naturally more attentive to their children check out this article from forbes 2012 84% of working women told forbes.com that being a stay at home mom is a financial luxury that they aspire to for source https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/09/12/is-opting-out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/?sh=415b2d70623a
  • Any way its not really about the mom it’s about what’s right and what is right for any parent well anyone of character would sat the well being of the children based on what my appointment has argued I am inclined to believe that he cares more about the mom than the child this sudy from norway show children of stay at home parents in general have a slightly higher grade point average or GPA then kid of working women https://www.ssb.no/forskning/discussion-papers/_attachment/113165?_ts=13ea1e1e480
it also shows that more women will choose to be the stay at home parent then do men
am I to take from this my appointment doesn’t care about the children? Well I don’t know what to make of it 
  • also trans women are not women but for the sake of argument let’s bring them in as well ad gay spouses because it works with my broader point which is the children come first 

Con
RESOLUTION: A woman's place is in the home
POSITION: Con


REBUTTAL I - WIDE SCALE
My opponent refuses to engage beyond one sentence rebuttals, and without sourcing mostly, so I will treat most of his arguments as one - and thusly respond in one section. I do not feel the need to get into too deep of discussion here.

"Frist off you have failed to define what freedom is(.) freedom in the classical christain definition is the ability to do what you know to be right"
Pro fails to realize that I did indeed identify what freedom is in round 1: RECALL - "the freedom to live as you wish or go where you want:" [D] Though it is indeed Liberty that I am describing, it more or less is the same concept. Furthermore, Pro fails to cite the source of where that definition of freedom comes from - it is therefore illegitimate in contrast to my sourced definition - it is an ad-hoc assertion to change the definition without proper substantiation for such a change.

"next yay my first argument was kinda flawed but you still have not debunked it all you really did was put words in my mouth I never said women should obey men that’s silly"
Note the underlined section of the sentence voters, Pro has essentially conceded, to what? It is left, perhaps, intentionally vague on Pro's part. Furthermore, Pro fails to acknowledge any specific argument with this declaration, instead opting to make a claim that Con "put words in my mouth" - and fails to substantiate the claim that Con claimed such a thing and that Pro did not say it. This is not actually helpful to the debate.

next all your arguments seem to argue about obligations by law to society  but as one would note my appointment seems to have forgotten about  obligations because of decency like don’t be a jerk that’s not a law but you can’t be a jerk ok that’s just fact 
Pro makes a reference to an obligation of decency but fails to argue how it's relevant to the debate at hand. Furthermore, claiming that such an obligation is "just fact", without any support for the claim. This is untopical at best, and a red herring at worst. 


REBUTTAL II - FORBES SURVEY.
next you seem to forget that women are more naturally more attentive to their children check out this article from forbes 2012 84% of working women told forbes.com that being a stay at home mom is a financial luxury that they aspire to for source
Pro makes the claim that a large percentage of women prefer to be at home, but fails to acknowledge that the resolution claims "Women" as in, "Women in general" as the resolution fails to specify, women to what degree. Next - the survey mentioned by "TheBump.com" yet, all of the hyperlinks provided in the article either link back to Forbes, or to the aforementioned "bump". 

The hyperlinked source for the article [LINK] - the survey apparently failed to provide any parameters for the experiment, or actual citations for their supposed "survey", furthermore - they only ask 1000 women, without any mention of controlling the political ideology of who is testing, without this knowledge it is entirely possible that Forbes simply took 1000 women who agreed with the conclusion of the poll, that women aren't satisfied in work.

To contrast this "1000 women polled" number, there are nearly 170 million females currently residing in the U.S [LINK] - as such this article, from 2012, is not only not representative of the actual opinion of most women, but is not represented to the number of women in the US. I would like Pro to explain how this source is A) Accurate, and B) representative. 

This number especially rings untrue given this much more recent poll by Gallup [LINK]:

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Given the choice between working or staying home to take care of the house and family, a record-high 66% of U.S. adults would prefer to work. While women's preference to work outside the home (56%) continues to lag behind men's (75%), it is at its highest point in roughly three decades."
This tells us that not only is Pro's number incorrect but that the majority actually swings the other way - more women prefer to work at.. work.


REBUTTAL III - RIGHTS OF CHILDREN.
"Anyway(,) its not really about the mom(.) It’s about what’s right(,) and what is right for any parent(?) Well(,) anyone of character would say the wellbeing of the child(.) Based on what my opponent has argued(,) I am inclined to believe that he cares more about the mom than the child(.) This sudy from norway show children of stay-at-home parents in general have a slightly higher grade point average or GPA then kids of working women [LINK]
Note - any bolded text in the above quote indicated a change from the original text - the reason for the failure to adhere to my opponent's words specifically was the lack of grammar and spelling by my opponent.

Pro continues to make claims, claims such as "it's not really about the mom. It's about what's right" This clearly outlines that the mother's needs do not actually factor into my opponent's cost-benefit for whether they should stay at home - however, this argument is primarily about children receiving "slightly" higher GPA whenever they have stay at home parents - then they do whenever no parent is at home.

Taking this argument at face value, it does not actually mean that women at home is what causes children to receive better grades, but a parent being present in general, what is my opponent's argument to fathers staying at home? As it would emulate the same result - however - this does not bring up the fact that my opponent believes "slightly better grades" to be equivalent to the liberty of the mother - however, the constitution DEMANDS equal rights be afforded to all of its citizens, not that children should have good grades, Pro fails to argue why better grades are more important than the agency of women in general - and this is all assuming that Pro's claims are true. 

A simple read of the introduction reveals Pro's ignorance of the study cited:
"It is unclear whether an increase in mother’s labor force participation should lead to positive ornegative long-run effects on children. The direction of the effect likely depends on the substitutabilityof parental care (Becker 1981)"
He also fails to address that the study is based in Norway, and not America:
"In Norway, the focus of our study,"
The aforementioned positives:
"Yet, some children’s outcomes may improve if workingparents rely on high quality day care programs and after school care (e.g. Blau and Currie 2006).Moreover, to the extent that mother’s employment increases family income, the increased financialresources could have a positive effect on child development"
This actually supports my argument, not Pros - and this is all ignoring the fact that Pro has not substantiated that better grades are more important than agency. 


"and this study from the United Kingdom shows kids of stay at home moms are less likely to be obese https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329334090_The_impact_of_maternal_employment_on_children's_weight_Evidence_from_the_UK"
To quote the article itself:
"employment on children’s weight in the UK, for a large contemporaneous cohort that has grown up in the midst of the childhood ‘obesity epidemic’. Second, it is one of the first papers on this topic to distinguish between mothers who are single and partnered – a key distinction, with just under one quarter of our sample of children raised in a one-parent family. Third, it provides evidence on the mechanisms underlying the effects, adding to the limited body of evidence on this topic.
Take away three things voters: Its based only in UK women and children (not women in general), that Pro's argument here only particularly applies to single mothers, and only slightly, and finally - that the article itself admits its working on limited information - this should - firstly - raise doubt of the actual veracity of Pro's claims - furthermore, the article clearly distinguishes between single parents and spouses, numerously stating that the affect is different based on the study - this just then says that single parents are more likely to have obese children in the UK, nothing else - this also ignores the general "obesity epidemic" which is, in general, the rise of obese children in the UK and America. 

That means that this article notes a correlation, not causation between working motherhood and staying at home - this could be the effect of other things - such as, in a single-parent household - a lack of income. Or, in general, psychological harm the child has experienced, as the Study fails to actually control for such a thing:
"Mothers in employment are likely to be different from those not in employment. Such differences, rather than employment, could be influencing child outcomes."
This means that the study is handwaving away the factor of employment entirely, which could change the entire course of the study - as this study notes:
"The study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, concluded that for every one percentage point increase in county-level unemployment between 2008 and 2012, the school children had a 4% increased risk of becoming overweight"
That would mean that the study that Pro cites does not actually account for one of the known contributors to child obesity, an oversight not their part. Again, however, it fails to argue why the potential overweightness of children in U.K, perhaps, but not most likely, caused by working mothers is more important than the agency of ALL women.


EXTEND:
  • Contention I - The social contract - Women have no obligation societally to "home"
  • Contention II - Liberty - Women have the right to do as they please, as long as it doesn't counteract the law, therefore they do not have to stay "at home"
  • Contention III - THE COMPONENT OF NURTURING. - notes that women are not inherently more nurturing than men
CONCESSIONS BY PRO:
  • Rebuttal to Pro - the Naturalistic Fallacy- what is natural isn't necessarily right: Pro concedes this
  • The interpreted resolution - aside from a term not in this resolution - Pro makes no mention of the resolution, thereby agreeing to it in this debate


CONCLUSION:
Pro has yet to even touch my arguments (aside from a vague disagreement with a definition of a word), and the arguments and rebuttals posited by Pro are unsubstantiated or non-sequiturs on their face. In contrast, my three-pronged constructive stands strong, fulfilling my burden of proof and I have rebuked all of my opponent's arguments and sources.

Back to Pro
Round 3
Pro
see what my opponent has done is first he says I have no source for  the definition of freedom I gave I said it was the Christian definition source the church it is not necessary for me  to include a source as with anything Christian it can be traced back to the church and bible you don't need a source 

 next my opponent quotes a piece from the study that comes from explaining why they did the study you can tell because the quote is from an earlier study in 1981 the program used to do the study cash for care was not enacted intel 1998 and was shut down in 2007 for reasons mentioned in the study 

further more he continues to put words in my mouth by suggesting I believe women should not have constitutional rights but I never said that and I would hope he stops attacking that straw man and focus on my actual argument

but my opponent has proven to me that he has no regard for the children's well being  by insisting the parents are just as or more important then the kids he fails to realize that parents have a responsibility to create a good life for their kids regardless of rather they want to or not its part of the deal he also fails to recognize that the mother of the child would logically be the best care giver to her child ok it is not sexism to be a logical person and say the mother of some-one is the best care giver to them its actually common sense or at least it used to be and who cares if the study was done in Norway what difference does that make?   

also lets not forget he never actually addressed my original argument all he did was accuses me of thinking women should obey men which is not true I never said that 

and if we are questioning polls what stops me from questioning his? 
Con
RESOLUTION: A woman's place is in the home
POSITION: Con


REBUTTALS:
This round will be similar to the last round, I will acknowledge and rebuke all of my opponent's arguments in one round, as they are fairly brief and unsubstantive to the wider argument at hand. Note Voters that Pro provides exactly zero sources to demonstrate their position, with things such as definitions in order for one definition to be preferred over another there must be a substantiation for preferring the proposed definition -why Pro should we care about your ad hoc claim of what freedom is? 

see what my opponent has done is first he says I have no source for  the definition of freedom I gave I said it was the Christian definition source the church it is not necessary for me  to include a source as with anything Christian it can be traced back to the church and bible you don't need a source 
As I mentioned above, ad hoc claiming that something is from the church isn't the same thing as actually demonstrating that it is - please provide the church's source which defines freedom as you have - furthermore - explain why we should accept the church's definition over the university of Cambridge. 


 next my opponent quotes a piece from the study that comes from explaining why they did the study you can tell because the quote is from an earlier study in 1981 the program used to do the study cash for care was not enacted intel 1998 and was shut down in 2007 for reasons mentioned in the study 
That does not explain why we should accept the studies conclusions - furthermore - regardless of the date of it's shut down - the study itself was published with my quotation intact, clearly meaning that the publishers of the study wanted the readers to see my point. This is not only unsubstantiated but even if it were valid, it would not impact my opponent's resolution - this does nothing to prove it true. 


further more he continues to put words in my mouth by suggesting I believe women should not have constitutional rights but I never said that and I would hope he stops attacking that straw man and focus on my actual argument
Please substantiate that claim - my opponent has failed to actually respond to my argument. I proved that Women have a constitutional right to agency, therefore even if children's grades were being lowered, it didn't matter as much as women having agency in general (especially considering that 50% of the aforementioned children are female/women. Pro has failed to rebuke my argument, and practically conceded to my argument - this is seeing as he has only claimed my argument is a strawman without actually presenting my argument. 


but my opponent has proven to me that he has no regard for the children's well being  by insisting the parents are just as or more important then the kids he fails to realize that parents have a responsibility to create a good life for their kids regardless of rather they want to or not its part of the deal he also fails to recognize that the mother of the child would logically be the best care giver to her child ok it is not sexism to be a logical person and say the mother of some-one is the best care giver to them its actually common sense or at least it used to be and who cares if the study was done in Norway what difference does that make?   
My opponent fails to actually grasp the impact of my argument - agency is something given to every sentient human in the world - it is more important than a slightly higher grading of education. It matters that it is only based in Norway because that means that this study is not actually representative of all children, in America, the study's conclusion could be false for example - Pro's study is not impactful to the resolution.  

Furthermore, Pro drops most of my rebuttals:
  • Mother prefer out-of-home work
  • The article regarding children's grades dropping whenever women work does not factor in equity of employment to children's grades dropping, something which I have demonstrated to be important in a child's grades
  • Pro has failed to address almost the entirety of Rebuttal I from last round

CONTENTIONS:
Pro has failed to acknowledge the extensions of my arguments:

EXTEND:
  • Contention I - The social contract - Women have no obligation societally to "home"
  • Contention II - Liberty - Women have the right to do as they please, as long as it doesn't counteract the law, therefore they do not have to stay "at home"
  • Contention III - THE COMPONENT OF NURTURING. - notes that women are not inherently more nurturing than men
Back to Pro



Round 4
Pro
  1. no you did not prove that women have constitutional rights because no-one was arguing that they don't this is exactly what I mean by you attacking   strawman   instead of actually attacking my argument the constitution is a legal document I never said women should be forced by law to stay home so the constitution does not apply here 
  2. source the catechism of the Catholic  church  https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/e3806e/pdf/#:~:text=1731%20Freedom%20is%20the%20power,one%20shapes%20one's%20own%20life.&text=This%20freedom%20characterizes%20properly%20human,or%20blame%2C%20merit%20or%20reproach.   this is the best definition of freedom simply put because the more good you do the less bad clouds your judgment the typical example given is an alcoholic who can not stop drinking he is not free because he can not choose the right option he just keeps drinking  and eventually drinks himself to death but by your secular definition he is only free if he gets to drink as much as he wants 
  3. but this hole rights argument from you is flayed to begin with because this is not and was not a legal debate its a social debate so its not really about rights its just about how humans interact with each other it has nothing to do with law it has nothing to do with rights you would not expect to be permitted to walk around in your underwear in public because freedom  now would you
  4.  what con fails to realize is when you become a parent you have no right to deny your child what they need to grow into good well rounded adults its not about the parents they knew what they where getting into when the got into bed together  its about getting your child the Education the health care and the wisdom to be a kind hard working generous individual a kid is not a pet you don't get a kid for your own enjoyment it is about creating human life and growing that person into a    well rounded adult but I am inclined to believe that con would rather have kids be pets to be babysat at a day"care" and sent to a "school" and learn to be good little workers and if their parents don't want them get rid of them or even kill them its the parents right after all you want them to be free right   



 in conclusion I think my opponent has a argument  that is shot from the beginning and rooted in a secular world view where pleaser is king and responsibilities well to hell with them after all why not seek infinite pleaser?   
Con
Forfeited
Round 5
Pro
I guess I won I have nothing to respond to so I will just go to closing statements : the being of the children must take precedence over ones own desires for the well being of your children is your responsibility and should be your first priority not pleasing yourself all the time
Con
RESOLUTION: A woman's place is in the home
POSITION: Con

DECLARATIVE:
I apologize for my absence; I was quite busy with other things at the time the argument was due - really my fault since I put mine in so late at night last time. However, even though I will be penalized a conduct point, I do not believe, and will prove, that my opponent has not met their BoP. Since my opponent has no place to respond, I will not be rebuking my opponent's arguments - as that would be in poor sport. 


BOP:
My opponent has to PROVE that women's (as in ALL or MOST women) "place" - as I have defined it - is in the home. Regardless of children, or trans-women, or any other point brought up - this is what my opponent MUST HAVE proven by the end of the debate. Conversely, I must have proven that this is not the case - that Women's place are, in fact, not in the home. I have brought this further to demonstrate that women do not have a singular "place". 


THINK OF THE CHILDREN!:
This has been my opponent's primary argument, one that he has no deviated from since the very beginning of the debate. This is shown through in their one argument to attempt to prove their BoP in the second-from-last round - namely:
"what con fails to realize is when you become a parent you have no right to deny your child what they need to grow into good well rounded adults its not about the parents they knew what they where getting into when the got into bed together  its about getting your child the Education the health care and the wisdom to be a kind hard working generous individual a kid is not a pet you don't get a kid for your own enjoyment it is about creating human life and growing that person into a    well rounded adult but I am inclined to believe that con would rather have kids be pets to be babysat at a day"care" and sent to a "school" and learn to be good little workers and if their parents don't want them get rid of them or even kill them its the parents right after all you want them to be free right " (Pro, #7)
To break this down - my opponent has not actually demonstrated anything here. They first establish that the responsibility of caring for children is on parent's who have the kids, that they have an obligation to care for their kids. They go on to make unsourced claims regarding my beliefs, but fail to actually press the matter at hand - does this prove that women's place is in the home. Well.... no - I agree actually that we ought to care of children - what does this have to do with the actual argument? This is, of course, a rhetorical question - my opponent has already argued why this matters.

To paraphrase their argument from the third - children whose parents are working tend to do less well in school and are at greater risk to become obese. Except... I already answered those claims in round 3, my opponent has failed to actually push back against my arguments regarding the inequity of their sources - for the voters to recall:

"Take away three things voters: Its based only in UK women and children (not women in general), that Pro's argument here only particularly applies to single mothers, and only slightly, and finally - that the article itself admits its working on limited information - this should - firstly - raise doubt of the actual veracity of Pro's claims - furthermore, the article clearly distinguishes between single parents and spouses, numerously stating that the affect is different based on the study - this just then says that single parents are more likely to have obese children in the UK, nothing else - this also ignores the general "obesity epidemic" which is, in general, the rise of obese children in the UK and America. 

That means that this article notes a correlation, not causation between working motherhood and staying at home - this could be the effect of other things - such as, in a single-parent household - a lack of income. Or, in general, psychological harm the child has experienced, as the Study fails to actually control for such a thing:
"Mothers in employment are likely to be different from those not in employment. Such differences, rather than employment, could be influencing child outcomes."
This means that the study is handwaving away the factor of employment entirely, which could change the entire course of the study - as this study notes:
"The study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, concluded that for every one percentage point increase in county-level unemployment between 2008 and 2012, the school children had a 4% increased risk of becoming overweight"
That would mean that the study that Pro cites does not actually account for one of the known contributors to child obesity, an oversight not their part. Again, however, it fails to argue why the potential overweightness of children in U.K, perhaps, but not most likely, caused by working mothers is more important than the agency of ALL women.

(Con, #4)
You see, as I have already argued - and my opponent has failed to acknowledge even with my one-rounded absence - that children the studies that Con cite are not actually doing anything to prove his point. Despite making zero new arguments or even adding on to previous ones, Pro fails to make a point here, the argument above is from round 2, my opponent had plenty of time to respond, and yet has not. My opponent has not fulfilled their burden of proof.

Now, despite this, Pro did attempt to rebuke some of my own arguments, lets go there:


YOU CHILD HATER!:
First, my opponent attempts to provide their own definition of freedom:
"source the catechism of the Catholic  church  https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/e3806e/pdf/#:~:text=1731%20Freedom%20is%20the%20power,one%20shapes%20one's%20own%20life.&text=This%20freedom%20characterizes%20properly%20human,or%20blame%2C%20merit%20or%20reproach.   this is the best definition of freedom simply put because the more good you do the less bad clouds your judgment the typical example given is an alcoholic who can not stop drinking he is not free because he can not choose the right option he just keeps drinking  and eventually drinks himself to death but by your secular definition he is only free if he gets to drink as much as he wants " (Pro, #7)
Though... my opponent has apparently refused from actually stating the definition, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and grab the definition from the website provided:
"Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act" [LINK]
Let's cross-reference this with my own definition I provided in round 1
As the voters might notice - the definitions are almost identical - though notice that one is talking about freedom and one about liberty- practically speaking the ability to do what you want is the same here. Notice also that Pro fails to even respond to my argument - which was that women have the agency to go and remain where they please. It was simply an attempt to gish gallop, but it doesn't actually rebut my point. 


"but this hole rights argument from you is flayed to begin with because this is not and was not a legal debate its a social debate so its not really about rights its just about how humans interact with each other it has nothing to do with law it has nothing to do with rights you would not expect to be permitted to walk around in your underwear in public because freedom  now would you" (Pro, #7)
Aside from, and I'm not trying to discredit my opponent here, the unintelligable run-on sentence - there isn't much substance here. My opponent's essentially argues that my argument was from a legal perspective, but the debate we're having is social.... My opponent seems to not understand my argument - that all humans have a right to freedom, which is more than a legal rule - it is a social law. To respect the freedom of others is inherently social. 


MY CASE:
I will now summarize my case regarding my BoP:

Recall my terms:
(Con, #2)
Then recall my interpretation of the resolution provided these terms:
"Cis-gendered women ought to focus their energy at the place they live." (Con, #2)
To prove this I offered three contentions:

I. The societal contract
  • That there are obligations that one owes to their society in order to receive basic rights and cares, and that women have no such obligation to focus their energy at the place they live. Furthermore, that for any society to have this obligation would be breaking a fundamental right that women have - agency. 
II. Liberty
  • Here I provide a syllogism which argues that, even if an individual is unsuited for something, IF you support freedom - THEN you support one's right to do things they aren't suited for. The same would naturally follow for things which people are suited for, having the freedom to not do it. 
III. The component of nuturing
  • I provided a meta-anyaliss and argued that women are not actually any more suited for nurturing children then men are, the only reason they can be, is because they spend significantly more time with children - however - simply pushing for fathers to do the same would rectify this. 
CONCLUSION:
Upon these three contentions, I uphold my claim - that women ought not focus their energy on the place they live. They have no obligation to their society, and to have such an obligation would be contrary to the rights we agree that we have. That even if someone was suited for a thing, they still have no obligation to that thing, and that women do not actively have an advantage for raising children compared to other gendered people. 

My opponent has failed to actually fulfill their BoP, I would ask voters for you to VOTE CON.