Feminism is based upon female entitlement to male achievements.

My opponent has forfeited Round 3, so I am just going to finish my rebuttals before presenting a few more arguments. I have already refuted the notion that academic fields only exist due to male achievement. My opponent next claims that all of these achievements are founded upon the male ability to protect society; i.e. if society did not exist, then neither would these achievements. The first reason that this is fallacious is that it presumes that females are incapable of protecting themselves and the rest of society. Absent the existence of male protections, my opponent reasons, society would not exist and neither would these inventions. Although females are biologically weaker than males, they are still capable of defending themselves and society. The reason that they have historically not done so is that the patriarchal structures have traditionally banned them from participation in military defense. However, when females do participate, they can make extraordinary contributions to social defense. Joan of Arc was a peasant girl who snatched the English victory in the Hundred Year's War out of Britain's jaws and defended her French homeland. Mai Bhago, a Sikh housewife, shamed cowardly Sikh men into rejoining the war effort against the Mughals; she was such an excellent warrior that she became the personal bodyguard of the Sikh leader, Guru Gobind Singh. Triệu Thị Trinh successfully defended Vietnam from the invading Wu dynasty. In fact, she was so successful at leading military campaigns that she actually carved out a portion of Vietnam as her own and ruled that area until her death. Boudicca was an anti-imperialist Norfolk Queen who razed imperial Roman settlements and struck fear in the enemy's military leaders. The Trưng Sisters, now nationally recognized as Vietnamese heroes, repelled Chinese forces for three years. Fu Hao, a leader of the Shang dynasty, was the most powerful military leader of 1200 B.C.; she successfully expanded her empire and defeated her enemies, the Tu. Ahhotep I drove the Hyskos invaders out of Egypt and successfully paved the way for uniting Upper and Lower Egypt into one nation. Zenobia, a female leader of Syria, defeated the patriarchal Roman Empire so decisively that she was able to completely drive the Romans out of Asia minor. She was so successful at her military campaigns that three other nations surrendered themselves to her and accepted her as their Queen. Tamara of Georgia, a ruler so respected by her people that she was declared the "King of Kings and Queen of Queens", actively commanded her own troops in battle and brought down every neighboring Muslim state while simultaneously annexing Armenia and establishing the Empire of Trebizond. What the success of these female warriors demonstrates is that not only have females historically contributed to the defense of their homelands as conquerors, rebel leaders, and foot soldiers, but also that the female role in social defense is every bit as possible and necessary as the male role in defense. He will probably claim that this does not matter. After all, even if females have defended society, and even if males prevent them from participating in defense, males still sacrificed their lives. In reply, I posit that achievement and sacrifice are not true achievements and sacrifices if they are done while forcefully preventing others from doing the same. They do not deserve any special recognition unless they are done when others do not wish to achieve or sacrifice or if all are free to achieve and sacrifice but only some do. In addition, even if you disagree with this, note that at best, this would mandate giving the males who actually sacrificed and defended society some sort of special honor and distinction (which we already do); granting other males the fruits of the sacrifice permits those other males to unfairly steal the rewards of actions they did not commit. So, what I have consistently proven is that permitting females to participate in "male" life does not violate any rules of biology; females are perfectly capable of advancing intellectual fields just as well as, if not better than, males and females are also perfectly capable of defending their nations just as well as males. His entire claim, then, rests on a notion of biological gender roles that has been refuted. His final argument is that male self-entitlement results in a variety of harms and female self-entitlement rests in feminism. Comparing the two phenomena is nonsensical; feminism is not attempting to claim male achievements as its own but rather is simply demanding acknowledgment of female achievements and for individuals to be judged based on their merits rather than on their reproductive capabilities. Since I have discussed what feminism does not entail, I will now discuss what it does entail. Nothing has inherent value. Rocks, humans, trees, etc. are all entirely meaningless. What confers value on an object is our ability to subjectively impose our preferences on it. My life also doesn't have inherent value. I give it value when I am free to pursue my own ends and engage in activities that I find worthwhile. But why does this matter? The end for all humans is happiness. Happiness is the proper end to have because it is not a means to any other end. So, insofar as my ability to be happy stems from my ability to pursue my own ends and thus confer worth upon myself, the most moral thing for me to do would be to pursue my own ends. Now, we run into a bit of a problem. What if my desire to pursue my own ends conflicts with another person's desire to pursue his own ends? For example, what if I gain happiness by killing others? From this is it is clear that we must have constraints on actions. In order to maximize happiness for all people, we must ensure that all people are able to pursue their own ends The best means through which we enable all people to pursue their own ends is through individual, hypothetical contracts that we make to not violate each others' ability to pursue ends . We constrain our interests if others constrain their interests so that we do not violate each others' autonomy. From these contracts, we create the basis of rights like life, liberty, and property. If we did not accept these contracts, there would be no reason for other people to do so either, and thus we could very easily violate autonomy and eliminate the basis for self-worth. From this we can see that rights entail noninterference. Feminism uses this liberal theory to draw several important conclusions. First, all individuals, regardless of gender, have the same basic rights. These rights are drawn from the internal nature of each individual rather than the good for society as a whole. Rights are reciprocal, and everyone merits the same treatment from everyone else. Second, gender roles should not be forced on anybody because they violate the individual's capacity to pursue her own ends. Both males and females ought to be the authors of their own lives, since they understand what they value. Third, individuals ought to be judged as individuals based on their merits rather than being categorized into arbitrary groups and judged based on common characteristics. Feminism thus does not seek to emasculate males or to strip them of their rights; rather, they advocate spreading rights and goods fairly among all people. Feminist theories may differ on the implementation of this (some advocate market distribution while others are more egalitarian, for example), but all feminist theories have a basic level of egalitarianism that is based on individual worth and human dignity. As I have pointed out numerous times, my opponent is grouping people together based on shared reproductive characteristics and arguing that they ought to be judged as groups rather than as individuals. Feminism rejects this and notes that since people are individuals should be judged based on their merits as individuals rather than as parts of a large group. In fact, I would posit that the entire nature of the affirmative case, which is based on gender roles, is nothing more than a fallacy of division. Now, since my opponent forfeited Round 3, please extend all of my rebuttals from Round 2. They were entirely uncontested in this debate. Thank you.