Instigator
Points: 21

Quotas for women in high government positions should exist

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
It's a tie!
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Points: 21
Description
(1) I'm Pro; my opponent is Con.
(2) Burden of proof is shared.
(3) No new arguments in the final round.
(4) Character limited to 10,000 characters per speech (i.e. Pro gets 10,000 characters in Pro's R1, Con gets 10,000 characters in Con's R1, and so on) -- anything above 10,000 characters should not be considered by judges; if a speech exceeds 10,100 characters, it is an auto-loss for the debater whose speech exceeded that amount. Characters include spaces.
(5) Judges should award a tie on "sources," "conduct," and "spelling and grammar" points.
(6) For judges, DDO standards for "select winner" judging apply and RFDs are required for all votes. The standards are accessible here (http://www.debate.org/forums/Debate.org/topic/68208/).
(7) This debate does not take place in any particular country; however, neither debater is required to argue for or against this policy in extreme circumstances. I expect this debate to be a reasonable debate rather than one where the semantics of this topic are exploited (e.g. Con can't make an argument that says "Pro's plan would be harmful in North Korea").
Round 1
Published:
I'm dropping this debate because some other issues came up over the past few days which restricted my ability to write an argument, and because I'm reconsidering my position on this issue, having come across some interesting arguments for both sides in my reading about this.

I'd appreciate if Con is willing to consider this a tie and not have judges vote on it. 
Published:
I was really looking forward to this debate. I even prepared my arguments beforehand on a word document. However, I can understand my opponent's concerns and issues. I wouldn't be all too upset if we call this debate a tie.

Round 2
Published:
Don't vote on this.

Sorry, again.
Forfeited
Round 3
Published:
Tie.

Yep. 
Published:
The end
Added:
--> @DieserDeutscheTyp
Do you want to get this debate deleted?
Instigator
#9
Added:
--> @spacetime
Well, nothing in this debate talks about the US. See rule 7.
That would mean, since the majority of nations in the world are developing, this debate primarily takes place in developing countries.
I do think it exists in developed countries such as the US too, though.
Instigator
#8
Added:
--> @Tejretics
Oh it certainly exists in the developing world. But I don't see any convincing evidence that it exists in developed countries such as the United States.
#7
Added:
--> @spacetime
You don't view the existence of institutional sexism as a defensible position? Even in the developing world?
Instigator
#6
Added:
--> @Tejretics
All those arguments seem to presume the continued existence of institutional sexism. I guess that's where the root cause of our disagreement lies.
#5
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Yeah sure, I don't mind that.
Instigator
#4
Added:
--> @Tejretics, @DieserDeutscheTyp
I will vote on this and will tie the votes so I get a voting point.
#3
Added:
--> @spacetime
I would've said: (1) This upholds the ethical principle of recompense for historic and current injustice. (2) Critical mass theory, i.e. more women represented in national legislatures leads to better policies for women. (3) This helps break stereotypes about whether women can be in positions of power. I think it's a very defensible position, and I was in favor of this before the debate and would've argued it if I had more time, though I'm now reconsidering my position and am undecided.
Instigator
#2
Added:
--> @Tejretics
I'm really curious as to what your arguments would have been... I don't view this as a defensible position.
#1
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
No information
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Both debaters agreed to a tie
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
No information