Being a stay at home mom is one of the most important jobs a woman can do.

My opponent has raised no objection to the structure I stated her argument to be in, so it is therefore acknowledged as being how her argument flows out. Now all I must do is further clarify on why her premises don't reach her conclusion. Re Reason 1: No, not all women run for president or are encouraged to, but since I've yet to make an argument like this one, this objection is completely irrelevant (red herring). The fact of the matter is that if certain women aren't even capable (whether it be physically, socially, or legally) of pursuing motherhood, then the conclusion which refers to all woman cannot be reached; surely one can't suggest that "staying at home" is the most important job a woman (as in any woman) can do when not all woman can do it. Re Reason 2: My opponent commits the red herring fallacy here as the reason I provide has nothing to do with whether or not being a stay at home mother is important. Re Reason 3: Again, this is an example of red herring. My goal with these three scenarios was to prove that my opponent's premises and conclusions didn't line up. I did not attack the issue of importance here. Also, this pretty much covers what she says below about me not showing how the job of a "stay at home mother" is not important. Now if her conclusion (as well as the resolution) had been something along the lines of: "Therefore, being a stay at home mom is one of the most important jobs a MOM can do", this would be a completely different story. Now, my opponent has yet to take control of this debate and define importance. Thus, I will take it upon myself to provide a suitable definition. In the resolution, it talks about jobs which women are capable of doing, thus we will define importance as being of great significance not just to a household, but to our entire nation (or world, not that it really matters, given the context of the debate). With that said, I shall lay down a few facts. The career of being a "stay at home mother" doesn't really benefit the economy( in fact, it does quite the opposite for the most part), doesn't insure public safety, and doesn't insure societal order. Most of the other available careers insure one or more of the above. Because of this, we cannot conclude that being a stay at home mother is one of the most important careers. There are multiple ways my opponent could have answered my question, but as I've stated previously, any of them would have weakened her case. It would seem that my prediction was correct. My opponent suggests that her husband's job is equal to hers and even attempts to convince you of this by telling you that this is what her husband believes. Well, whether or not her husband believes that, there are still some crucial facts which must be taken into account. Firstly, her husband doesn't merely bring home the bacon (so to say); her husband helps in insuring our NATIONAL security. In other words, he is not just defending my opponent and her children, but rather the entire nation; my opponent's husband helps in defending 200,000,000 people (children and adults). Surely my opponent's "job" of looking out for her children 24/7 until they inevitably pursue their education (Kindergarten and up) is not as important. Secondly, without her husband and his job, she has no means of being a stay at home mom. The same doesn't apply when we remove my opponent from consideration. As for how her answer weakens her case, she went about attempting to prove her case by listing factors of her job that only benefit herself, her husband, and her children; she exposed the grave error in what she advocating. How can her career even be CLOSE to being considered one of the most important careers if it only directly benefits a few individuals whom she is involved with personally? As noted above, an important career goes about directly benefiting society as a whole. Another thing to consider is that there are many ways to substitute my opponent's job while greatly contributing to society. She tells you how her job manages to keep her children in a good environment (or in her words, it should) and that it allows her to nurture her children and prepare them for the world, but this is just what our schools accomplish (professionally might I add). As far as keeping the house clean goes, one can simply hire a maid at a proper price. Neither of these paths end in merely solving individual needs. Finally, my opponent concedes that women are capable of taking up any job. She merely scoffs this argument away believing that the point is to show that there are other jobs. Alas, my opponent would have been better off arguing from an anti feminist stance. If we are to consider women as being capable of any job, this means that I am free to compare "staying at home" with any other job which is deemed most important. In other words, my opponent essentially suggest that being a "stay at home mom" is in the same league of importance as leading a country, being involved in a prioritized part of the medical profession, or a prioritized part of the legal profession. These professions are the backbone of our nation; our nation cannot survive without them. However, the same cannot be said for being a stay at home mom (in fact, our society has shown that it can easily persevere without it). Now I shall clarify on that straw man fallacy my opponent committed at the end of her previous round. She insist that I prove how being a stay at home mother is not important. Quite frankly, this is not my argument; judging from the resolution, attempting to prove such is merely optional. All I have to do is show how "staying at home" doesn't fall under the criteria of "most important." Based on my above argument, I've shown this quite well. One thing is for sure: My opponent has yet to show how being a stay at home mom is one of the most important jobs a woman can do. Given my first argument that concerns the non sequitur fallacy, she hasn't even ATTEMPTED this yet. I now stand ready for my opponent's final response.