Instigator / Pro
0
1522
rating
14
debates
28.57%
won
Topic
#4258
The current wage gap between men and women is likely inaccurate and not a reliable piece of information.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
AustinL0926
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
2
1636
rating
33
debates
93.94%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
The wage gap is defined as the gap between the pay of men and women found throughout numerous studies. I will be arguing that the wage gap is not a highly reliable piece of data for supporting feminism. According to this Payscale article, women in the workforce earn 82 cents to every mans dollar. However, for women and men working the same job, women earn 99 cents for every mans dollar according to the article. A possible reason for this large variance is that women in the workforce do not work as hard as men on average or do not put much of their time into their jobs, and so are promoted to higher positions less and hence why there is such a large difference. If so, it wouldn't support feminism as a woman could be just as capable as a man of moving through the hierarchy of jobs, but would rather support the conclusion that women choose to work less hard. According to this Harvard study, "women view professional advancement as equally attainable, but less desirable". This supports the conclusion that it is likely that women overall choose to work less hard as they find professional advancement as less desirable and thus would be less inclined to work hard towards it. In addition, according to this Washington Post article, men work 42 additional minutes every day than women. This further shows my point, as working for longer periods makes it more likely that one will be able to advance their careers. According to this article by NewAmerica.org, fathers take median of 1 week of paternity leave while mothers take a median of 11. In addition, according this article by WorkPartners, "the longer women are [on maternity leave], the more they may be overlooked for promotions and have lower upward mobility in moving into management roles and receiving pay raises". Women overall take longer periods of maternity leave, which may inhibit growth at a company. This is yet more evidence to show that all the gender wage gap may not be showing significant evidence for the idea that women are paid less due to sexism.
All that said, it is possible that this is all wrong and that the discrepancy between the wage gap overall and the wage gap between those that work the same job is simply due to the fact that employers are sexist and more likely to promote men than women. This is due to the fact that all of the above evidence is circumstantial and while indicating that sexism is not the factor does not prove it. Despite that fact, the evidence I provided shows enough evidence to where it is unclear whether or not sexism is at play or not, and thus the evidence is not significant or a highly reliable of information.
Con
#2
I. Resolutional Analysis
1. Literal resolution
"The current wage gap between men and women is likely inaccurate and not a reliable piece of information."
2. Interpreted resolution
"It is more likely than not that men and women do not have a difference in wages."
3. Winning conditions
PRO wins if he proves that it is likely that men and women do not have a difference in wages.
CON wins if he proves the converse (e.g, they do have a difference in wages).
II. Definitions
1. Critical definitions (from Oxford)
Current: belonging to the present time; happening or being used or done now.
Wage: a fixed regular payment, typically paid on a daily or weekly basis, made by an employer to an employee.
Gap: lack of balance : disparity
2. Non-critical definitions
"likely", "inaccurate", "reliable", "piece", and "information" should all be considered to have their common, everyday meanings.
III. Constructives
It is an undeniable fact that women make less than men, an assertion supported by numerous reliable sources.
My opponent has even admitted this, as shown in his opening argument:
"women in the workforce earn 82 cents to every mans dollar."
Therefore, I have upheld the resolution, by showing that it is likely there is a current wage gap between men and women.
IV. Rebuttals
However, for women and men working the same job, women earn 99 cents for every mans dollar according to the article.
While this may be true, it is irrelevant to the debate. We are debating whether overall, a wage gap between genders exists.
"A possible reason for this large variance is that women in the workforce do not work as hard as men on average or do not put much of their time into their jobs, and so are promoted to higher positions less and hence why there is such a large difference. If so, it wouldn't support feminism as a woman could be just as capable as a man of moving through the hierarchy of jobs, but would rather support the conclusion that women choose to work less hard. According to this Harvard study, "women view professional advancement as equally attainable, but less desirable". This supports the conclusion that it is likely that women overall choose to work less hard as they find professional advancement as less desirable and thus would be less inclined to work hard towards it. In addition, according to this Washington Post article, men work 42 additional minutes every day than women. This further shows my point, as working for longer periods makes it more likely that one will be able to advance their careers. According to this article by NewAmerica.org, fathers take median of 1 week of paternity leave while mothers take a median of 11. In addition, according this article by WorkPartners, "the longer women are [on maternity leave], the more they may be overlooked for promotions and have lower upward mobility in moving into management roles and receiving pay raises". Women overall take longer periods of maternity leave, which may inhibit growth at a company. This is yet more evidence to show that all the gender wage gap may not be showing significant evidence for the idea that women are paid less due to sexism. "
The causes of the wage gap are irrelevant. Again, we are only debating whether it exists, not whether it is caused by sexism.
"This is due to the fact that all of the above evidence is circumstantial and while indicating that sexism is not the factor does not prove it. Despite that fact, the evidence I provided shows enough evidence to where it is unclear whether or not sexism is at play or not, and thus the evidence is not significant or a highly reliable of information. "
Along with the fact that this sounds suspiciously like a slightly modified Chat-GPT argument, this is also irrelevant. My opponent has spent his entire opening argument trying to prove that sexism does not cause the wage gap - inadvertently admitting that it exists, and therefore conceding the resolution.
V. Conclusion
In my opening argument, I have:
- Set up definitions and a framework
- Showed, using numerous reliable sources, why the wage gap is real, and a reliable piece of information
- Demonstrated how my opponent's arguments are irrelevant and fail to uphold the resolution
Please vote CON!
Round 2
Pro
#3
Resolutional Analysis:
2. Interpreted resolution"It is more likely than not that men and women do not have a difference in wages."
This is not how the debate is supposed to be interpreted. The debate is about the legitimacy of the wage gap for showing a substantial different in the wages of men and women. There are a few things that this interpretated resolution gets wrong about this. Firstly, it says that it is more likely than not that there is a difference in wages between men and women, however I do not have to prove that it is more likely than not, but simply that the evidence isn't sufficient. Insufficient evidence could very well be a majority chance that the evidence proves the claim but that it isn't high enough to actually prove it significantly. Secondly, the debate is not about whether or not men and women have different wages, it is about the legitimacy of evidence to prove that claim regarding the wage gap. This is a big difference because it constrains the evidence to whether or not men and women have significantly different wages to the wage gap. Thirdly, it uses absolutes, that is more likely than not that there is a difference in wages, not a significant different in wages.
What you say are the win conditions are not the win conditions as they use the improper interpreted resolution. The win conditions should be the following:
PRO wins if he proves the current wage gap between men and women is likely inaccurate and not a reliable piece of information regarding proving sexism likely is the cause of the wage gap.
CON wins if he proves the converse.
Constructives:
It is an undeniable fact that women make less than men, an assertion supported by numerous reliable sources.My opponent has even admitted this, as shown in his opening argument:"women in the workforce earn 82 cents to every mans dollar."Therefore, I have upheld the resolution, by showing that it is likely there is a current wage gap between men and women.
The resolution was not that there is a current wage gap between men and women, as discussed previously that was an improper interpretation of the claim. Thus, this argument does not uphold the resolution.
Rebuttles:
However, for women and men working the same job, women earn 99 cents for every mans dollar according to the article.While this may be true, it is irrelevant to the debate. We are debating whether overall, a wage gap between genders exists.
Regarding the improper interpretation of debate, it would be irrelevant, however as that interpretation was incorrect it is very much so relevant. This is because it goes to show that the wage gap between men and women may not be sexism; after all if women working the same jobs as men make the same amount of money that would indicate that women get promoted less and that is where the disparity in wages arises. And, if women get promoted less but make the same amount of money at higher levels where they are promoted, that could mean that factors like maternity leave inhibiting promotion, women viewing promoted as less desirable and not aiming to be promoted, and women working less and thus being considered less viable candidates for promotion are all things that could contribute to the wage disparity instead of sexism.
The causes of the wage gap are irrelevant. Again, we are only debating whether it exists, not whether it is caused by sexism.
We are not debating whether or not the wage gap exists as established previously. This is about how good the wage gap is a piece of evidence to prove sexism, not if it exists.
Along with the fact that this sounds suspiciously like a slightly modified Chat-GPT argument, this is also irrelevant. My opponent has spent his entire opening argument trying to prove that sexism does not cause the wage gap - inadvertently admitting that it exists, and therefore conceding the resolution.
This is most certainly not from ChatGPT and I find it insulting that would insinuate that without reason, especially considering how my entire argument cited specific evidence, something that ChatGPT cannot do. And, regarding the wage gap, of course it does exist but that does not concede the resolution as the resolution is about showing that sexism likely does not cause the wage gap.
Conclusion:
My opponent has created a false interpretation of the claim and then does not back up that interpretation.
They go on to say that my argument does not fit their false interpretation of the claim and thus I haven't fulfilled the resolution, despite the fact that my evidence clearly proves the actual resolution.
They irrelevantly claim my essay is AI-written without any reason or proof beyond is "seeming" like it's AI-written, which is highly unprofessional in a serious debate and shows lack of character.
VOTE PRO!
Con
#4
I. Rebuttals
TLDR: My opponent is trying to move the goalposts of the resolution after the debate begins.
“This is not how the debate is supposed to be interpreted.”
So PRO makes an ambiguous resolution, then gets salty when his opponent doesn’t interpret it in the exact and favorable way he wanted? Yeah, that’s not how debate works.
“The debate is about the legitimacy of the wage gap for showing a substantial different in the wages of men and women.”
And I have proved exactly that – that there is a wage gap, and it shows that there is a substantial difference in the wages of men and women.
“There are a few things that this interpretated resolution gets wrong about this.”
I’ll say it again – PRO made an ambiguous resolution, tried to change it (motte-bailey fallacy), then shifts the blame onto me. Nice try, but no.
“Firstly, it says that it is more likely than not that there is a difference in wages between men and women, however I do not have to prove that it is more likely than not, but simply that the evidence isn't sufficient. Insufficient evidence could very well be a majority chance that the evidence proves the claim but that it isn't high enough to actually prove it significantly.”
This argument fails for a multitude reasons.
First, PRO is trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. However, as the affirmative side, as well as the one arguing against the accepted status quo, the burden of proof is entirely on him.
Second, PRO is deliberately raising the bar of evidence required. Despite the resolution only saying “likely” (e.g. on balance of probabilities), PRO is now claiming I have to “prove it significantly.” I will ignore this, and ask judges to consider it as poor conduct.
Third, it’s irrelevant anyway, because I have proved that there is wage gap between men and women, beyond a reasonable doubt. I provided six reliable sources in the first round showing that there is a wage gap. PRO contested none of them.
“Secondly, the debate is not about whether or not men and women have different wages, it is about the legitimacy of evidence to prove that claim regarding the wage gap. This is a big difference because it constrains the evidence to whether or not men and women have significantly different wages to the wage gap.”
This is a strange argument. PRO is basically claiming, “You haven’t proved X, because you’ve only proved X.” I have provided significant legitimate evidence to prove there is a wage gap. PRO has contested none of this evidence.
“Thirdly, it uses absolutes, that is more likely than not that there is a difference in wages, not a significant different in wages.””
PRO once again attempts to change the resolution after the debate starts. A “wage gap,” by definition, refers solely to a difference in wages.
In addition, I already proved that there is a significant difference: women earn $0.82 for every $1 a man earns. Over a lifetime of earnings, this translates to differences of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
“PRO wins if he proves the current wage gap between men and women is likely inaccurate and not a reliable piece of information regarding proving sexism likely is the cause of the wage gap. [emphasis added]CON wins if he proves the converse.”
This is blatant and undeniable resolution shifting. I very rarely ask judges to deduct a conduct point for arguments alone, but I believe this bad-faith argumentation deserves it.
PRO attempts to introduce “sexism” into the resolution, when this was never mentioned at all (in the resolution, short description, or long description). Obviously, this will be ignored.
“The resolution was not that there is a current wage gap between men and women, as discussed previously that was an improper interpretation of the claim. Thus, this argument does not uphold the resolution.”
That’s literally what the resolution is about. Anything else (including the causes of the wage gap) is irrelevant.
“Regarding the improper interpretation of debate, it would be irrelevant, however as that interpretation was incorrect it is very much so relevant. This is because it goes to show that the wage gap between men and women may not be sexism; after all if women working the same jobs as men make the same amount of money that would indicate that women get promoted less and that is where the disparity in wages arises. And, if women get promoted less but make the same amount of money at higher levels where they are promoted, that could mean that factors like maternity leave inhibiting promotion, women viewing promoted as less desirable and not aiming to be promoted, and women working less and thus being considered less viable candidates for promotion are all things that could contribute to the wage disparity instead of sexism.”
PRO once again focuses on the causes of the wage gap, not its existence. Extend arguments regarding topicality and relevancy.
“We are not debating whether or not the wage gap exists as established previously. This is about how good the wage gap is a piece of evidence to prove sexism, not if it exists.”
Obvious goalpost shifting is obvious goalpost shifting.
“This is most certainly not from ChatGPT and I find it insulting that would insinuate that without reason, especially considering how my entire argument cited specific evidence, something that ChatGPT cannot do. And, regarding the wage gap, of course it does exist but that does not concede the resolution as the resolution is about showing that sexism likely does not cause the wage gap.”
This was clearly a tongue-in-cheek comment, regarding how PRO’s argument was confident, credible, and entirely irrelevant to the topic. It was obviously not meant to be taken seriously, as it’s clear that an AI would have written far better than PRO.
“My opponent has created a false interpretation of the claim and then does not back up that interpretation.”
Actually, PRO has created an ambiguous resolution, then tried to add on something that was never originally mentioned (goalpost-shifting). He then claims I'm the one creating a false resolution (a clear case of projection).
When this sort of situation happens, voters should use the contender’s interpretation of the resolution, as the instigator has failed to uphold his responsibility to create a coherent and cogent resolution.
“They go on to say that my argument does not fit their false interpretation of the claim and thus I haven't fulfilled the resolution, despite the fact that my evidence clearly proves the actual resolution.”
PRO tries to use evidence to back up an imaginary resolution, then claims that imaginary resolution is actually the real one.
“They irrelevantly claim my essay is AI-written without any reason or proof beyond is "seeming" like it's AI-written, which is highly unprofessional in a serious debate and shows lack of character.”
PRO attempts to use my sarcastic comment to get voters to vote for him – undoubtedly an attempt to compensate for his lackluster arguments.
II. Resolutional Support
1. Makes more sense
My resolution makes more sense – a reasonable person, upon seeing the resolution, would understand it to be debating whether the current wage gap is a real piece of information.
2. Instigator responsibility
If the instigator wants to debate a highly specific resolution, it is his responsibility to make sure that the resolution can only reasonably be interpreted that way.
Failing this, then any reasonable resolution by the contender should be accepted.
3. Fairness
PRO has attempted to move the goalposts in order to secure an easy win. This behavior isn’t one that should be rewarded by judges. As such, I Kritik that this behavior ought to be considered a substantive argument against PRO, and a reason to vote against him.
III. Evidence that the wage gap does exist
I have proved that there is a wage gap between men and women, with six reliable sources, in the first round. Therefore, it is accurate and a reliable piece of information.
PRO has completely ignored my evidence, and therefore implicitly conceded it. As such, I have negated the resolution completely.
Vote CON!
Round 3
Pro
#5
So PRO makes an ambiguous resolution, then gets salty when his opponent doesn’t interpret it in the exact and favorable way he wanted? Yeah, that’s not how debate works.
The claim was "The current wage gap between men and women is likely inaccurate and not a reliable piece of information." You are interpreting that as "It is more likely than not that men and women do not have a difference in wages.", which is completely and utterly different. I am just saying that the original claim is what we are arguing. So far you have failed to argue for that original claim but your faulty interpreted one.
“The debate is about the legitimacy of the wage gap for showing a substantial different in the wages of men and women.”And I have proved exactly that – that there is a wage gap, and it shows that there is a substantial difference in the wages of men and women.
This was a mistype on my part. I mean to say that it is not about the legitimacy of the wage gap for showing a substantial different in the wages of men and women. The entire paragraph around it was focusing on how your interpreted resolution was not the actual resolution, you are cherry picking the one sentence I made a grammatical mistake in.
I’ll say it again – PRO made an ambiguous resolution, tried to change it (motte-bailey fallacy), then shifts the blame onto me. Nice try, but no.
I made an argument for the original claim. You haven't. It isn't ambiguous either, I am arguing for the claim and you are not. It is as simple as that.
“Firstly, it says that it is more likely than not that there is a difference in wages between men and women, however I do not have to prove that it is more likely than not, but simply that the evidence isn't sufficient. Insufficient evidence could very well be a majority chance that the evidence proves the claim but that it isn't high enough to actually prove it significantly.”This argument fails for a multitude reasons.First, PRO is trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. However, as the affirmative side, as well as the one arguing against the accepted status quo, the burden of proof is entirely on him.Second, PRO is deliberately raising the bar of evidence required. Despite the resolution only saying “likely” (e.g. on balance of probabilities), PRO is now claiming I have to “prove it significantly.” I will ignore this, and ask judges to consider it as poor conduct.Third, it’s irrelevant anyway, because I have proved that there is wage gap between men and women, beyond a reasonable doubt. I provided six reliable sources in the first round showing that there is a wage gap. PRO contested none of them.
This does not shift the burden of proof onto you. I have already fulfilled the BOP as well. "Likely" means you have to "prove it significantly" because likely means that it is a high probable chance. That is basic English for what likely means. It is not irrelevant because your interpreted resolution is wrong. Again, you have still failed to make a single argument against the actual claim.
“Secondly, the debate is not about whether or not men and women have different wages, it is about the legitimacy of evidence to prove that claim regarding the wage gap. This is a big difference because it constrains the evidence to whether or not men and women have significantly different wages to the wage gap.”This is a strange argument. PRO is basically claiming, “You haven’t proved X, because you’ve only proved X.” I have provided significant legitimate evidence to prove there is a wage gap. PRO has contested none of this evidence.I am not claiming “You haven’t proved X, because you’ve only proved X.”, just defining the constraints of what this debate entails. You have indeed proven there is a wage gap. I myself proved it in R1 and said the wage gap exists. Obviously I haven't contested that evidence. That is because this debate has absolutely nothing to do with whether the wage gap exists. Here is the claim: "The current wage gap between men and women is likely inaccurate and not a reliable piece of information". Where does it say the wage gap doesn't exist? All we are debating is on the legitimacy of the wage gap as a piece of evidence. That is it.
“They go on to say that my argument does not fit their false interpretation of the claim and thus I haven't fulfilled the resolution, despite the fact that my evidence clearly proves the actual resolution.”PRO tries to use evidence to back up an imaginary resolution, then claims that imaginary resolution is actually the real one.
Again, you resolution is not the actual resolution. Stop trying to shift the goalposts then say I am the one shifting the goal posts.
“They irrelevantly claim my essay is AI-written without any reason or proof beyond is "seeming" like it's AI-written, which is highly unprofessional in a serious debate and shows lack of character.”PRO attempts to use my sarcastic comment to get voters to vote for him – undoubtedly an attempt to compensate for his lackluster arguments.
This is the internet, there is no way to tell what is sarcastic or not. From my perspective, that was a serious accusation and highly unprofessional. Furthermore, making sarcastic jabs is still unprofessional in a serious debate, regardless of how you spin it.
My resolution makes more sense – a reasonable person, upon seeing the resolution, would understand it to be debating whether the current wage gap is a real piece of information.
Show me where in the claim there is even remotely anything that supports your interpreted resolution. How about instead of insisting that your interpreted resolution is right and saying I'm trying to shift the goal posts, you bring up the actual claim and explain why that claim is the same as your interpreted resolution? Saying a reasonable person upon seeing the resolution would agree with you is not an argument for why it is actually true.
Con
#6
Ok, I’m going to keep this final round really simple, and show why I have fulfilled my burdens, while my opponent has not.
I. Why I have disproved the resolution
I proved that:
- That the wage gap currently exists
- That it is likely accurate
- That it is a reliable piece of information
My opponent has, by failing to refute my evidence in either R2 or R3, implicitly conceded its truth. Therefore, my arguments stand, and I have negated the topic statement.
II. Why my opponent has not proved the resolution
My opponent has conceded that:
- That the wage gap currently exists
And dropped that:
- It is likely accurate (on account of the evidence in support of its existence)
- It is a reliable piece of information (on account of the many reliable sources which have used undeniable data to prove that the wage gap exists)
His only argument is that the wage gap doesn’t prove sexism exists. This is irrelevant to the resolution, despite his attempts at insisting otherwise. Therefore, my opponent’s arguments fail to affirm the topic statement.
III. Why judges should slap a conduct penalty
Throughout all three rounds, my unesteemed opponent has repeatedly tried to move the goalposts to include sexism, an obvious ploy to get a cheap win. Examples include:
"Despite that fact, the evidence I provided shows enough evidence to where it is unclear whether or not sexism is at play or not,"
"PRO wins if he proves the current wage gap between men and women is likely inaccurate and not a reliable piece of information regarding proving sexism likely is the cause of the wage gap."
"...women working less and thus being considered less viable candidates for promotion are all things that could contribute to the wage disparity instead of sexism."
"This is about how good the wage gap is a piece of evidence to prove sexism, not if it exists."
"I made an argument for the original claim. You haven't." [WTF?]
"Again, you resolution is not the actual resolution. Stop trying to shift the goalposts then say I am the one shifting the goal posts." [WTF? x2]
"All we are debating is on the legitimacy of the wage gap as a piece of evidence" [changing 'information' to 'evidence']
I rest my case. Please vote CON!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Both agree it exists. Pro argues that given that it can be explained, it ceases to be a reliable statistic. Con argues it remains a statistic, with the social interpretations of it being outside the scope of the debate.
Ultimately, pro falls short of BoP in showing how said statistic is unreliable for what it measures. Were the resolution that statistics can be misused he would win. As is, conflicting sources on it would have been the way to go.
I will note disagreement with con that this debate is just over if it exists or not; my BMI from six months ago is unreliable to present conditions, a debate on that would be stretching to be said to be about if BMI merely exists.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con has an advantage right from the start. Pro's main issue in calling the wage gap inaccurate and unreliable is lack of clarity in the resolution and nothing in the description to make their position more clear. Hence, when they say the wage gap is "inaccurate," it is unclear what argument they are making in particular. Con capitalizes on this, arguing that the measured wage gap is an accurate statistic, essentially taking the resolution at face value.
Pro argues that sexism is not the cause of the wage gap, but Con does not have much trouble refuting this point—this isn't what the resolution asks for. There's a lot of arguing about the goalposts here, but Con's argument is more consistent with the description since they are simply sticking to what it says.
Con does a good job of formatting here, and I find prose a bit harder to read. That said, Pro's grammar is fine, and his arguments are reasonable. So I'll leave legibility tied, given that this is essentially a matter of taste.
No prob. I've seen this same debate a couple times, and it's interesting that people keep losing it due to semantics.
Thanks for the vote.
bump
Sometimes I wonder if there's something wrong with me. It's like I have a pathological addiction to doing things right before the deadline :/
(bump so I remember to do this one tmrw)