The United States of America Should Elect a Female President

'Should' - FinalMy opponent attacks my claim to authorship. I would like to remind my opponent and the viewing audience that I never stated my opponent could not argue against the definition of 'should' I provided. My claim to authorship was merely an answer to her query about context. It would seem to me she is attacking me for...answering her question. Odd.In any case, my opponent continues to assert, without much reason other than to oppose my definition, that the wording should be a "desirable or expected state". She does not seem to realize that she still needs to provide explanation for WHY this is a desirable or expected state. Again, as I've said repeatedly now, even if we accept her definition, she is no closer to making a point in this argument than if she were to not use such a definition. She needs to explain why. Why would a female president be desired? Why is it even to be expected? She needs to make an argument. She has not.Probability of a Female PresidentMy opponent has an egregious error in her reasoning here. Do not be deceived. She claims the probability between a male or female president is 50%. How she can predict this, for the entirety of the future, is beyond me. She seems to discount the fact that at any given time there may be far more males than females running for president, or vice versa. If, for instance, there was only one female in a group of sixteen candidates running for president, the chance of a female president would only be 0.0625, not .5. And there are far more candidates than merely sixteen in any given election. She does not also figure into the numerous other complexities of an election, such as the money or media attention required to successfully run, certain education, likeability, capability, ect.My opponent cannot soundly claim there is any such probability, certainly not one of .5. She has no grounds to claim any of this. She is ignoring the complexities of politics, as well as the social movements that may or may not happen in the future. Hell, for all we know, it's possible in 100 years we won't have presidents anymore! We may have a completely different form of governance. How likely this is is anyone's guess, but the point is, my opponent simply cannot account for how likely the chance of a female president truly is. She has not given any sound reasoning for her .5 claim, let alone for the extremely unlikely claim that the probability of the next 44 presidents being male is one in a trillion. All it would take is one election where the chance of a female president is less than .5 to throw off that ENTIRE statistic she claims. My opponent, in short, has no idea what she is talking about. She is making up numbers, and acting as if they are true, set in stone.Lack of Female PresidentsFirst of all, my opponent is right to say "dichotomy" was not the right choice of words. Trichotomy would have been correct. My error. However, dichotomy, trichotomy, the point is, she proposed a false dilemma, and continues to do so. Notice how she "Revised" her list, yet did not add in all of the explanations I provided. She openly is unwilling to include any and all possibilities; only those which fit her agenda. She refuses to look at the situation objectively. Until she revises her list to include any and all possibilities, it simply is not accurate.My opponent makes light of my suggestion that females may be predisposed for not wanting such a position, but she does not explain why. It is not entirely worth ridicule to suggest that, nor is it hypocritical of me to suggest. Just because males and females both may be able to perform well as president, does not mean such a leadership position is DESIRABLE to them both equally. This is a false dichotomy.My opponent also seems to think that a lack of qualified female candidates in a supposedly free and open environment can only be explain by discrimination. This is another false dilemma by my opponent, and the same propositional fallacy she has been making this entire time. Just because someone CAN do something does not mean they WILL do something. For instance, although being male and female does not in of itself make one qualified or unqualified for the presidency, perhaps males and females seek different kinds of educations, which figure into their capability to be president. Perhaps again the environment one is in encourages certain kinds of behavior (which is far different from discrimination mind you). Again my opponent creates a false dichotomy, and does not factor into every possible explanation; only the one that is most convenient to her prerogative. This is intellectual dishonesty.'Should' vs. 'Should Not'My opponent yet again proposes another false dilemma, in that she believes it can be soundly stated that if one opposes the notion of 'should' they are supporting 'should not'. This is, again, a false dichotomy. One can say "I do not think that we have an obligation or duty to elect a female president" or "I do not think it is desirable or expected to have a female president" without in fact saying "we have an obligation or duty to PREVENT female presidents", or "It is UNDERSIREABLE or UNEXPECTED that we will have a female president". In fact, I have done just this. Just because we should not pick a candidate based on their sex, does not mean we should disqualify one. Just because being a female does not make you DESIREABLE as a candidate doesn't mean you are UNDESIREABLE; it just doesn't factor in. And just because we may not be able to expect a female president does not mean we can expect NOT to have one either; it simply means the process and factors that figure into someone becoming president are far to vast and complicated to be predictable in any reasonable manner. My opponent's attempt is evidence of this. And yet, despite all of this, she still proposes that someone can only argue one or the other. This is a false dichotomy. It is not an "either or" choice as my opponent would claim it to be. Burden of ProofI have no idea where my opponent is coming from with this burden of proof nonsense. The burden of proof is not upon the person who makes a debate, but upon the person who is making a claim[1]. In other words, in most situations, it is the affirmative, my opponent, who has the burden of proof. Not the negative. The negative is considered the natural stance. My opponent does not seem to understand this, and by consequence, does not seem to understand the very institution of BOP she invokes. I suggest she learn how burden of proof functions before she tries to haphazardly toss it out as a last ditch effort to criticize someone.And as my opponent, at the very least, shares in the burden of proof, she has not, in any way, made an adequate argument for why there should be a female president. She has not, as I have defined the resolution, argued for why we have an obligation or duty to elect a female president, and she has not argued why a female president is to be desired at all, when being female is no more relevant than having, say, red hair, or a gold tooth. She has argued none of these things. And her only attempt at arguing the expectancy of a female president, which she only made last round mind you, fell flat on it's face. Her attempt at probability was horrendously flawed.My opponent has not in any way fulfilled her BOP, or given a sound argument for the resolution. She has in fact proposed several false dilemas, comitted a number of fallacies, including a propositional fallacy which runs through entire argument (which she dropped and did not contest in the end), and has been intellectualy dishonest on several occastions.Whereas I have clearly shown why a female president is not desireable or to be expected, and also why we have no obligation to elect a female president. Any burden of proof I may have has been fulfilled. The same cannot be stated about my opponent.Vote Con.Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;