Wage gap is not real
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 8 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
The wage gap, stating in a feminist movement that women get paid less then men, I am trying to debunk.
- The occupation one holds,
- Their rank in their organization,
- How long they've worked there,
- The education level they had to attain to do the job,
- How many hours they work in the average week
- With the burden here on pro, he seemingly fails to present
- Pro defines the wage gap in the description as a statement that "women get paid less than men." Now there could be various reasons for the statistical disparity, but pro seems to admit throughout the debate that women do lay at the end of it, conceding the debate.
Truly though, it is simply calculated on a basis of averages. What is the average income of men, then women. They do not take into account how many women are working, or if they take time off.
- So here pro concedes the resolution by showing that women do get paid less than men on average. As con, I simply remain agnostic as to the reasons for this because pro has affirmed rather than "debunked," that women get paid less than men.
- Pro provides no sources for any of his claims. Having the full burden of proof, thus, his lack of evidence defaults the argument to con. Postulating random and sporadic factors and unsubstantiated theories does not justify the claim either. With pro having conceded that the wage gap is real, the debate draws to a clear-cut close.
- Pro has the burden of proof here and cited no evidence for any of his claims. This indicates no reason to believe them.
- Pro's argument goes along the lines of "women get paid less than men because of x,y, and z un-evidenced theories." This however already admits that women get paid less than men which is what he defined as a wage gap: "stating in a feminist movement that women get paid less then men." Thus, pro concedes the debate proposition by admitting the wage gap is real, and the debate otherwise goes to con for his lack of evidence.
Unless I am partially blind, the topic statement would only be true if on average women do earn the same as men(or more), across all occupations, women and men considered alike. The Wage Gap as a concept also needs to be stated by a feminist movement as a myth, as a requirement in Pro's attempt at definition. This was not fulfilled by Pro, which fails to uphold his own BoP in reference to the confinements set up by Pro the instigator himself.
Pro CONCEDED that under some circumstances and interpretations, women may be seen statistically as earning less, and the latter part of the Pro R1 argument is saying why "Although the wage gap exists, Women are not seen as less competent individuals in society" as paraphased, although I am unsure if Pro will deny or not. Pro's argument also requires external evidence(for example, "You may think that the gender pay gap is determined through a complex set of equations which considers the following"), which Pro fails to provide any, not links nor any directional redirections to help us find it.
This makes Con win on Args. Conduct against Con for forfeiture.
PRO makes a pretty traditional argument- that the gap in earnings between female workers in the US and male workers in the US is not due to a pronounced difference in wages for the same job but rather reflects higher pay for for skills that men are more likely to be capable and/or trained for- engineering and coal mining are two examples PRO gives.
CON forfeits the first half of the debate, offering no counterargument for PRO to take on. PRO merely extends. CON fails to make any positive argument in the final round and doesn't counter PRO's argument in any particular. CON interprets PRO's thesis as "PRO must prove that women are not paid less than men" but this was clearly not PRO's thesis or intention. CON states that PRO has the burden of proof and weak as PRO's argument is, he does at least bring an argument to his thesis and provide some relevant examples. CON makes no argument beyond misinterpreting PRO's thesis and provides no examples. CON hypocritically criticizes PRO for not sourcing his claims while also not providing any sources. As the only debater who made an argument, PRO must win this debate. CON reliance on a narrow interpretation of thesis is all the less compelling because the forfeit denied PRO any opportunity for clarification or re-direct.
ARGUMENTS to PRO
CONDUCT to PRO for CON's forfeit.
Basically con wins on arguments solely due to a semantic technicality where the resolution did not state "paid less for the same work"
Conduct is scored based on the forfeiture of the 1st round.
Arguments: Con demonstrated how Pro's argument seemed to defeat itself, even admitting to the wage gap existing. The rest of Pro's argument, such as the causes of the wage gap, were irrelevant to the resolution.
Sources: Neither side used sources.
S/G: Both sides had good readability.
Conduct: Obviously goes to Pro, considering Con's forfeiture.
CON is ultimately right that PRO admitted there was a waye gap as per the description. So ultimately CON wins.
PRO does get points for conduct because CON forfeited and then responded in the last round out of two rounds. Would have been interesting to see a rebuttal from PRO.
Sources tied because neither really used a source.
Spelling and grammar tied because both were easy to understand and used good grammar and spelling practices.
Conduct for the forfeit and all new arguments by Con being when Pro cannot rebuke, in fact I could just give the win on that alone.
Pro's case is simple and since Con didn't abuse his/her/their already abusive position in order to give sources backing what is said, Pro wins the debate.
The wages are exactly equal at every job level, which Pro says here:
"Truly though, it is simply calculated on a basis of averages. What is the average income of men, then women. They do not take into account how many women are working, or if they take time off.
For example, are women taking gender majors in college or engineering? You must also take into account that men take jobs such as coal mining, where women are either unwilling to preform or lack the physical abilities.
You must also ask, did they have children? and if so, when the children went to school, did she still work full time or leave the job to be more flexible?
I await your response."
In other words, Pro implied already the accurate idea that the primary gap is due to less women being in as many high paying jobs as men, not earning less at the same level with the same hours put in.
Furthermore, both sides completely ignore the difference between salary and wage and since Con didn't define wage either, I am able to use a dictionary and choose my own applicable definition that I see as most sensible here.
A wage, as opposed to a salary is as follows:
"a particular amount of money that is paid, usually every week, to an employee, especially one who does work that needs physical skills or strength, rather than a job needing a college education"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wage
It is always knowsn to me and most to be held opposed to a SALARY or one-off massive payment for a 'big job' or 'big series of jobs'.
Since Con only replies when Pro can't defend, it is just as fair for me to understand and see what Pro naturally was instantly leading to because inside of what Pro wrote it discusses all the other factors at play including what level the women work at vs the men.
The idea Pro is getting at is that at the same level, wages are identical. Neither side touched on what a wage is as opposed to a salary making that a tied point and also leading into why Con saying Pro conceded is nonsense, as Con ignored all the reasons and questions Pro gave.
Con Forfeited half of a two-round debate, and presented his argument in the very end, where Pro can't address. While Con did make a good point about Pro's acknowledging a gap, Con does not do his due diligence in tying this back to the resolution which states that "the" wage gap, in accordance to feminist description, is not real. In other words, it would have been up to Con to demonstrate the reason an "average gap" undermines Pro's affirmation. Merely stating that Pro acknowledges "a gap" does not suffice.
As for reliable sources, neither Pro nor Con used any, and their spelling grammar was sufficient.
Conduct is obviously awarded to Pro because he participated in all of the rounds, whereas Con presented his argument at the very end.
My vote goes to Pro.
Conduct to Pro because of Con's forfeit.
Con pointed out that Pro admitted that the wage gap was real. While Pro provided a variety of explanations for the wage gap, the debate resolution was not "The wage gap is not a result of sexism," but rather "The wage gap is not real." Pro's arguments attacked a particular explanation for WHY the wage gap exists, but he admitted THAT it exists. Con noticed this and argued accordingly. Thus, he wins arguments.
I don't think that the lack of sources had any impact on the debate because Pro's arguments were irrelevant to the resolution anyway, so I won't award any source points.
Not even close, though it was substantial.
Is this the record for most reported votes in one debate?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AustinL0926 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con, 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter refers to an portion of the debate (in this case, the description) that he believes inherently functions as a concession of the debate before any argument is given. He also directly addresses Pro's arguments, dismissing them as irrelevant. That is sufficient.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Public-Choice // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con, 1 point to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter points to an portion of the debate (in this case, the description) that he believes inherently functions as a concession of the debate before any argument is given. While some assessment of Pro's argument would have improved this vote, since the purported concession is present in the description, doing so would apparently not have affected the voter's decision, so this is sufficient.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
The vote describes a final round blitzkrieg, and review of the debate supports this as a wholly objective interpretation. That the voter added extra details, does not invalidate this glaring issue which was the foundation of their vote.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#cheating
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 5 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote is mostly fine, but the explanation of sources reduces it to literally a fluff vote.
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
Intelligence_06
Added: 4 hours ago
Reason:
Unless I am partially blind, the topic statement would only be true if on average women do earn the same as men(or more), across all occupations, women and men considered alike. The Wage Gap as a concept also needs to be stated by a feminist movement as a myth, as a requirement in Pro's attempt at definition. This was not fulfilled by Pro, which fails to uphold his own BoP in reference to the confinements set up by Pro the instigator himself.
Pro CONCEDED that under some circumstances and interpretations, women may be seen statistically as earning less, and the latter part of the Pro R1 argument is saying why "Although the wage gap exists, Women are not seen as less competent individuals in society" as paraphased, although I am unsure if Pro will deny or not. Pro's argument also requires external evidence(for example, "You may think that the gender pay gap is determined through a complex set of equations which considers the following"), which Pro fails to provide any, not links nor any directional redirections to help us find it.
On the other hand, Con's argument required no external evidence and he pointed out the lack of sources and the blatant concession on the other faction.
Args to Con. Sources to Con because although neither had sources Pro is the one that desperately needs it while Con is not. Conduct to Pro for Con forfeiture.
I report intel for the sources point allocation.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Athias // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
The vote describes a final round blitzkrieg, and review of the debate supports this as a wholly objective interpretation. That the voter added extra details to help con improve, does not invalidate this glaring issue which was the foundation of their vote.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#cheating
**************************************************
If you have an issue with my "competence," then by all means, report my vote to a moderator or solicit more votes as is your prerogative. I stand by my vote.
You should vote here, given that an incompetent person cast a vote against me.
The wage gap theoretically is negligible currently. However, the reality, if we assume the existence, depends on statistical amounts. If we find any one instance where women are being paid less than men for doing the same work at any stage of society ever, the "not real" part is negated.
A bit of friendly advice before you get targeted by those who are just trying to bolster their positions on the Leaderboards:
Think clearly and critically about the resolution. So for example, on the subject matter you've brought up, is it that there's no wage gap? Or does the POLITICAL NARRATIVE on the wage-gap lack context? Furthermore, you may also want to consider whether the stance of which you are a proponent creates a semantic advantage. If you don't communicate clearly your premises, and how your extensions of them service your resolution, then your arguments may be chum in the water for the sharks here looking for their next meal.
With all that said, welcome, and I wish you luck.
What RM said
change it to pay gap or salary gap and I will accept.
Wage gap doesn't exist, you are correct. I know what wage vs salary is.