Kim Kardashian is a disgrace to women!

To begin with, I would like to highlight the resolution. That Kim is a disgrace to women. There is a difference in saying someone is a disgrace to "women" and that someone is a "disgraceful woman". The resolution does not simply imply that Kim is a bad person, but that her being a bad person is somehow a poor reflection of women in general. It implies Kim is a representative, in some form, of women as a group. To this, I ask, how is this true? What body has elected Kim to represent women as a group? Can it even be said "women" are a real "group" to be represented? I dispute this. Women are no more a group in onto themselves then men are. The only group men and women belong to is "humanity". Having the same genitals as someone else in no way makes you a representative of that group, no more than having the same colour hair, or same colour eyes does. So this idea that Kim represents women, and therefore, is capable of misrepresenting them, and being "a disgrace to women", is in of itself ridiculous and false. There are no grounds no claim that she is representative of women.As for my opponent's claims, let's examine them.DivorceMy opponent has criticized Kim for getting divorced after only little over 2 months of marriage. But I wonder if they have actually stopped to research why it was that she sought a divorce. According to an interview with Oprah[1], Kim left because of, quote, "the little things". Kim admits to having rushed into the marriage after only a short period of dating, and tells how, after living together for the marriage, that there were a number of "small issues" that stacked up over time. This is hardly a poor reason for divorce; quite the opposite. She does not speak ill of her former husband, but simply admits that there were some irreconcilable differences between the two they had not been aware of when dating, and she thought, rather than stick with a marriage that would overtime get worse and worse, she would seek a partner more suitable for her desires and needs.Now, my opponent could certainly argue that this was something foolish that she did, but disgraceful? Hardly so. Her divorce was just as many others have been; she did not love her partner. Why should she have stayed with the marriage? If my opponent is setting up Kim to be a representative of women, what message is my opponent attempting to send when chastising her for divorcing someone she did not love? That women should be bound to their marriage, no matter how they feel about their spouse? That is far more damaging and horrible than Kim's divorce ever could be.Wedding CostsMy opponent chastises Kim for spending lavish amounts of money on her wedding. While I agree, that spending so much money is ridiculous, there are some things we must consider:1) They have the money. Unfortunately, the Capitalist society we live in allows for individuals to make such ridiculous amounts of money, while other flounder and starve. This is a problem; but not a problem with Kim herself.2) It was a marriage. How could someone reasonably criticize someone for wanting to make their wedding the best possible? If you love someone, you would do your best to give them all the riches in the world; they are the most important person to you. This can hardly be described then as disgraceful behavior. In fact, it is quite admirable.Kanye WestMy opponent criticizes Kim for dating Kanye West, while her divorce from Kris Humphries is still being finalized. Why my opponent does so is beyond me. If someone is openly getting a divorce, why should they wait until the divorce is fully done with, in order to start dating? She's made it clear she does not intend to be in a relationship with the man, so it's not as if she is cheating on him. It's silly to think that, simply because they are not "officially" divorced, she has to postpone the search for a new partner. She's made her choice to split from him, what is the problem if she then chooses to find a new partner? This is not even bad behavior, let alone disgraceful.Kim's ChildMy opponent has attacked Kim for being pregnant, and the child still technically belonging to Kris. But...why is this a poor reflection of Kim? If anything, it is a problem with California law, not Kim. My opponent has not explained why this is bad behavior. If anything, it is a problem with the California legal system.Kim's MotherMy opponent ends their argument by attacking Kim on the basis of how her mother treats her. As with their above argument though, how is this in anyway relevant to Kim? Her mother's behavior does not make Kim disgraceful, it makes her MOTHER disgraceful. To judge Kim on the basis of how her mother treats her is no different than judging an abused child on the basis of how the abuser treats them. THAT is disgraceful.So let us review. There is a fundamental problem with claiming Kim is a representative of women, and therefore, capable of being a "disgrace to women". But beyond that, my opponent's criticisms fall flat on their face, especially their last two, which have little to nothing to do with Kim herself. They have not been able to show how Kim's behavior is disgraceful, let alone, "a disgrace to women".