The United States of America Should Elect a Female President

Con claimed: "as the WRITER of the resolution, I know which meaning I intended when using the word "should""This is absolutely outrageous. My opponent is actually claiming that because she wrote the resolution, she has ownership over its meaning. She does not. She had the opportunity of defining terms in the introduction and she chose not to. Therefore, the resolution should be understood in its context by applying the most normal, or natural, meaning of the words.And the most natural way of understanding the resolution is:It's desirable and expected that one day a woman will be elected President of the USA.and not, as my opponent insists (quite against democratic principles):American voters have a duty to elect a female President and to vote against any equally qualified male candidate who may run against her. The likelihood of a female PresidentAmerica has had 44 male presidents in a row. Let's look at the likelihood of the next 44 presidents being male too.Assuming that men and women have an equal chance at election, the chance of the next ten Presidents being male is one in a thousand (0.5^10). The chance of the next 20 Presidents being male is one in a million (0.5^20). The chance of the next 44 Presidents being male is less than one in a trillion (0.5^44). Less than one in a trillion or, in other words, negligible.So we can be very confident indeed that if women and men have an equal chance at being voted in as President, that a woman will be President, probably within our lifetime and certainly within a generation or two.However, of course, there may not be an equal chance for men and women to be President. For example, until less than a hundred years ago, women were denied the right to hold office and even the right to vote, by legislation.Reasons why a woman has never been PresidentI thank my opponent for her examples to add to the list of reasons why a woman has not yet been President.(Just a little note: "dichotomy" means "a division or contrast between two things" [1]. Therefore, my list, which contained three things, was indeed a "false dichotomy" but perhaps not in the way my opponent intended it.)I have updated the list to include her suggestions:A.1 There is direct discrimination against women. Eg. Con: The social structure could encourage women not to pursue such rolesA.2 There is indirect discrimination against women. Eg Con: The system could perhaps not favor men or women, but another class of people (e.g. the wealthy) who happen to be mostly men.B. The election process is biased against women. Eg Con: Perhaps the female candidates do not get enough media attention; Perhaps in relation to that, female candidates are not likely to gain favor in well known parties.C. There aren't any adequate female candidates.My opponent also suggested that "it could simply be luck" that women have not been elected President. You'd have to be pretty unlucky when the odds are less than one in a trillion that a woman not be elected in 44 Presidencies at even sex odds.And her final suggestion: "Females could perhaps, even if they are equally capable of serving such a role, have an innate biological disposition that makes such a role undesirable to them."Let's put aside, for now, the idea that half the population of the United States is uninterested in controlling the destiny and laws of the nation because, um, they're just girls, perhaps, and it's all so serious!Instead, I will say this. To be President of the United States requires energy, drive, ambition, purpose. It is impossible for anyone, male or female, to perform adequately as President in a half-hearted sort of way, or if they don't want to be there. My opponent has already conceded that men and women are equally qualified to be President. One of the required qualities is a determination and desire to be President and do the job well. Therefore, my opponent contradicts herself by suggesting that women have no desire to be President.To summarise. The lack of female Presidents could be the result of direct or indirect discrimination or a biased election process. All of these are undesirable. They should be resolved. And the best evidence that they have been resolved is when a female President is elected, not just once, but regularly.My opponent has leapt back in with the idea that there might be a lack of viable female candidates. Given that she has agreed that there is no difference between men and women's qualifications to be President, a lack of viable female candidates, election after election, could only be the result of discrimination somewhere or system bias. So the same argument applies.Con argued: "One can say "women should not be prevented from being president" without saying "women should be president"."Not really. There is less than one in a trillion chance of 44 male Presidents in a row if women had an equal chance at being elected. Considering the next 44 Presidents, now that legislative barriers have been removed, and discrimination is being addressed, at least some of those next 44 Presidents should be women.Burden of proofMy opponent instigated this debate and she has the burden of proof. She has burden of proving the resolution to be untrue. She has tried to change the meaning of the words of the resolution. She has tried accusing me of being "dishonest" and "deceptive". She has tried that old chestnut of rights for women somehow being discriminatory towards men. What she has not done, however, is uphold the burden. Because we all know that the United States should indeed one day elect a Female President, and she has failed to prove otherwise.1. http://oxforddictionaries.com...