Men should be allowed into lesbian bars.

I'm running late for a dentist appointment, so we'll see how this goes... I find my opponent's comparison of myself to Margaret Thatcher to be quite comical if not offensive. Hahah! Similarly, I reckon that my opponent's style of humorous debate reminds me of Monty Python, for example, relying mainly on its British accents/undertones/figures of speech to achieve any real comic effect (for us Americans). In other words, a comment like 'Lez It Up For The Lads' seems almost funny to us because we can imagine a bunch of drunken Englishmen shouting something like this in a B-rated movie as the token foreigners for comic effect. If Brian were to have said, "Lez it up for the guys" like we would say in the States, it would not have been nearly as entertaining. With that out of the way, let me try to address my opponent's points within the next 10 minutes. Argh! First, I would like to clarify that I in no way believe discrimination to occur only within the workforce. However, my assessment of that possibility was linked only to the provided and agreed upon definition. You can't blame me, as a debater, for pulling out all the stops. More importantly, however, is this concept of morals and what 'should' be allowed. Brian feels that it would be immoral to discriminate entrance to one's club based on gender (or ethnicity, for example). I may agree that to some extent, discrimination based on these factors is wrong, however, that does not necessarily mean that it should not be allowed. For instance, say I had $100 in my pocket and passed a bum on the street who asked me for some cash. Perhaps I *should* give it to him based on the moral concept of generosity. In other words, it would be a nice thing to do. However on the other hand, why should I give it to him? There is something to be said about rights of ownership, and I argue that it would be immoral to force an owner of a lesbian club to admit men. Granted that this debate is focused on what 'should' happen and not just legality; however, I have already established several good reasons as to why admittance of men should not have to be the case. As a reminder: The owner of an establishment presumably owns not only the place of business, but the property as well. If you owned a piece of property, say a home, nobody would expect you to allow every Tom, Dick or Harry in off the street. Rather as a home owner, you would have the right to choose whom you wished to let into your home. Similarly, say you're a bachelor and 3 beautiful women wanted to come into your place. You might want to let them in and you have that right. Now suppose that 3 good looking men wanted to come into your home -- you might be a little peeved if not disinclined to grant them admittance. However in this situation, nobody is arguing that 'should' let the guys in, because... why should you? Simply because they want to come in? It doesn't add up. Moreover on this point, say a distant son wanted to visit his dying father on his death bed. The doctor doesn't think that it would be good for the father's spirit to be riled up by the son's presence. However the son only has the very best of intentions for seeing his dad -- shouldn't that matter? Maybe. But that doesn't mean that letting him see his father would necessarily be the right thing to do. So you see, in my first example, I have established why property rights in this case take precedent over one's desire to enter upon another man's property. In my second example, I have proved how one's intentions really make no difference regarding the right course of action or what 'should' or should not be done. Now, offering up the contention that once Men Only establishments in the UK are now forced by law to also allow women is fine and all; however, it does not effectively argue my point that there are still plenty of other places in which segregation by gender is not only allowed but preferred, such as regarding fraternities. My opponent did not respond to this point or any of my examples, so you must and 'should' extend my arguments on this platform and grant this a point in my favor. Or should I say favour. Regarding my 3rd point, Brian's response was that he and his mates would probably spend more money on alcohol at the establishment than the other women in attendance. That might be true. Say Brian and his friends had 10 drinks each while 3 other women only had 2 drinks each. Certainly 30 drinks vs. 6 is a great discrepancy. However considering that the bar was a place for LESBIANS, we can reasonably assume that there would be more women to men (especially since they seem to not like admitting men), so if there were 30 women at the club that night all drinking 2 drinks a piece, then the ending ratio would actually be 30 drinks bought by the guys vs. 60 drinks bought by the ladies, meaning that the women, overall, would have in fact spent more money. If at this point you regard Brian and his friends as some type of drunken Brits who spend all of their Euros at the local pub getting drunk as all bloody hell, and therefore assume that they might actually buy 20 drinks instead of 10 (equaling the amount of drinks that the ladies might buy), the response to that is that THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL. In fact it is easier to presume how much Brian drinks because he has told us; however, we have no idea how much a bunch of rowdy British lesbians drink. Some seasoned butch may even be able to drink Brian under the table for all we know! Nevertheless, my opponent has disregarded the female/lesbian prerogative of wanting to spend time in an all-female environment by suggesting that Starbucks is always an option. Hah. Clever. However women and gay men does not = lesbians, therefore the sole demographic of this entire debate has been ignored. Additionally, there are plenty of places for Brian and his friends to befriend lesbians other than the Candy Club, such as a women's basketball game, for example. There are also plenty of other clubs for him to attend and drink, I suppose, so all-in-all there has really been no proof of why men should be allowed into lesbian bars other than the fact that they wish to be admitted. Finally Brian ends his argument by stating, "I believe that, in a modern, liberal-minded society, women can only progress on the basis of having a truly equal playing field with no special privileges accorded to either gender." That's swell and all, but just because we live in a modern society does not mean that we live in a liberal one. Not everyone believes in gender equality, and some people would even argue that it's an immoral concept. Further, how does a female-only club for lesbians give women special privileges? To equal the playing field here, a club for gay men could choose to not admit women, and then this entire argument would be dismantled. Like I said - a club's management SHOULD be able to admit whomever they want, so long as they are willing to accept the consequences, whatever those might be, i.e. loss of profit, a negative stigma in the media/society, etc. If we live in such a liberal minded society, then people would recognize the immorality of the practice and choose to not attend the Candy Bar. But if people recognize the rights of property owners and patrons alike, perhaps Brian and his friends shouldn't be telling people what they should do...