Woman are equal to men

"My response? Yeah, exactly. You just conceded the entire debate and lost the round. Thank you for agreeing with me =)" That's basically her entire case. She's a shifting advocacy. I call abuse. Alright so to clarify to all of you, the term "SHIFTING ADVOCACY" is used in formal debate, and it's basically what it sounds: the affirmative position, or the 'instigator' on this site, is changing their position. Now, this is abusive because the job of the opposing team, the negative position, or the 'contender' on this site, has to prove the instigator wrong. However, the contender can't do his/her job at all if the instigator is just going to continually change their case. Her making a COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY NEW argument in R2 is abusive because it basically shows that she's willing to basically change to another position - another interpretation of the resolution - anytime I take out one of her points. Now, at this point she's probably just going to come up in her next round and just say "Oh it was OBVIOUS that this debate was going to be about the moral equity of women and men" (Well actually she already had, " You attempt to take my resolution and blow it out of context. "), but that in turn leads to Another reasons to vote CON: "obviousness", along with "feasability" and "ridiculousness", are all specific to our own cultures and experiences. For the people living in America it's pretty ridiculous to believe that if you shoplift you'll get your hands cut off, but in the Middle East and other parts of the world, it's a whole different story on how believable those consequences would be. On Debate. org we are almost free reign on what types of topics we can set up, and what positions we would want to take. We don't have a time limit to how long it takes to write the first round of the instigator's case, and it can take up to 8,000 characters. If Smarticles has had all that freedom and has REFUSED to use all that space she had after writing her R1 (she used only 214. That's 2.7% usage) for defining "obvious" things, if she CHOSE to NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, then it would be up to me to define the resolution/topic. And to me, it was quite obvious that women are not equal to men. When I see "equal" I think "math", and in math, "equal" means congruent and equivalent to. Therefore, my thesis is that women are not the same as men. She used the same type of argument in her R2 as I am right now, called "Debate Theory", so she can't say I'm not justified in using it, because then the impacts would apply directly back to her, and even more so because of my arguments above talking about the instigator's prep time for R1, so if she chooses to keep using theory on me, you look to the PRO's and CON's R1's only. In which case I win because my definitions are the definitions for the debate and her case directly bites into my arguments. So, onto her own theory stuff. "This destroys the entire purpose of fair debate and takes away all of the ground I have in this round to debate on. You, and my voters, need to look at the context of this round. Simply making the resolution mean anything you want it to defeats the entire point of debate. " This is wrong on a load of levels. First of all, I believe that SHE'S the one being unfair on this topic: She gives this 42 character case and expects me to derive all her interpretations of the resolution/topic she wrote from it. I don't think so. If she's going to define anything in this debate, it better be FIRST ROUND because she'd be a SHIFTING ADVOCACY otherwise, and I have already explained why that is abusive. But EVEN IF she didn't have a shifting advocacy and WASN'T abusive, EVEN IF you don't believe that: She didn't define anything in R1, and so it was up to me in my own R1 to specify what the resolution was talking about. Unlike her, I cited definitions from a specific source, and sure, there are 14 or more definitions (honestly I didn't count), but I picked the first definition on that list, so it should be most relevant. And even if it isn't, she didn't define anyways, so we have to look to my definition for the debate. Thirdly, she speaks about "context", "fair debate", and "ground". I have individual responses to each of these. "Context" - There is no context; when I look at the topic I see the words and I see a white background. As for the whole "it's obvious" thing, I've already responded to that. You didn't provide a definition in R1, so I provided one. "Ground" - 1) All arguments take away ground. If I bring up evidence that shows that ethanol causes more petroleum use than just plain using gasoline, well then too freakin' bad! You can't use the argument that ethanol curbs global warming anymore. 2) It doesn't matter if I take away ground. You have an infinite amount of arguments to make, and this is even more clearly defined when we all realize that we're all on the internet. We have Google, Wikipedia, and all these other FREE sources where we can get information. Even if by my case I took away fifteen million arguments you could've made, you still have infinite arguments to make. Infinity minus big numbers still result in infinity. You'd have to prove that you have limited ground for this argument to matter at all. 3) If an argument I provided was able to make you resort to not responding at all and saying I'm "unfair", doesn't that mean I'm just winning the round because my arguments are too good for you? "Fairness" - She's basically saying that my argument is unfair because it takes away too much of her ground, and that debate should be fair. She never provides a reason why fairness matters, but EVEN THEN. Debate isn't fair. I'm sorry that it was made this way. The point of debate is to find truth. Whoever provides the "true arguments" wins the round. Now, she comes up here in R1 with the topic, "Woman are equal to men". Overlooking the spelling, she chose the topic. She chose the wording, and SHE CHOSE to not define in her first speech. Now, I come up here in my R1 and, because she didn't define, I defined the resolution/topic. I believe that women are not equal to men because they AREN'T equal: The TRUTH is on the CON side of this topic. I'm sorry if making it simple and easy to vote CON feels like you're going to lose this debate, but that's THE TRUTH. Look, if the resolution was "The sky is blue", and the AFF/PRO just comes up here and says, "hey, the sky IS blue", the NEG/CON can't say that the AFF/PRO is being abusive because they have absolutely no ground to debate on. In formal debate, the AFF/PRO can say that they didn't choose the topic and it's not their fault that the truth is on their side, and that it's too bad that the truth is on their side: and thats what debate is for; finding the truth. But WHADDYA KNOW, ON DEBATE. ORG THE INSTIGATORS CHOOSE THEIR TOPICS. She set herself up in a death trap by wording the topic that way and refusing to provide any definitions whatsoever in her R1. Speaking of which, I don't know what an abusive argument is. One that takes away too much ground? Oh wait, but all arguments take away ground. So what IS an abusive argument? ?? ? Finally, she says "Simply making the resolution mean anything you want it to defeats the entire point of debate" This is also wrong on multiple levels. 1) What's the point of debate? To find truth. I'm sorry the resolution agrees with me. 2) Isn't she just "making it anything" she wants it to be as well? Why does this apply to me at all? I'm not the one with a shifting advocacy. 3) It isn't what I want, it's THE TRUTH.