Women are being treated unfairly in this society.

My case for this round would be more clear if I provided counter-rebuttals first before my rebuttals of his arguments in round 2.Counter-Rebuttal:"I would like to make my opponent and the viewers aware that this debate is ONLY about the United States."-No it isn't. You meant for it to be only about the United States, but you did not specify, so this debate is not only about the United States."It is not a violation of conduct to do so if one debater has made a misinterpretation and the other debater clarifies what he meant."-I did not misinterpret. My interpretation is completely valid for the resolution and the debate. Therefore, I interpreted the debate properly, I just misinterpreted you. -It certainly is a violation of conduct. Further clarifications that contradict your conternder and viewer's initial interpretation is certainly a conduct violation. -For an example, if I started a debate titled: "We should not have any organs." and you accepted and your main argument is: "We should have organs because they keep us alive." and then I reply by saying: "Oh, I'm sorry. You misinterpreted. I meant organs as in the instrument, not the body part. Therefore your argument is invalid." This is clearly a violation of conduct on my part because I did not clarify properly and ended up tricking you."However, they do not prove that women are ALWAYS treated fairly."-I don't need to prove that women are always treated fairly. I have no BOP, BOP is on you. My job is simply to prove that women are not ALWAYS treated unfairly. "I will not deny that women are, in some ways, being treated absolutely fairly."-Pro has conceded. "My opponent makes examples of women he knows. However, they are only three of billions. These arguments are not appropriate."-They are certainly appropriate, they disprove your resolution. I concede that I have committed the cherry-picking fallacy [1], but so have you. Furthermore, the fact that I personally know them makes my sources more reliable than yours."I am glad to see that these women are being treated fairly, but many women are not as fortunate as they are, sadly."-Pro has conceded yet again that women are not always treated unfairly."In conclusion, my opponent has misinterpreted me and must acknowledge that."-Yes, I openly acknowledge that you did not properly clarify, thus making me and viewers (such as kbub) misinterpret you, but nevertheless, my interpretation is completely valid for the debate. "I do not ask for a concession or an apology."-And I do not intend to concede or apologize, I have not wronged you. "Until he acknowledges my points, his points, I believe, are invalid in this debate."-Pro has committed another gruesome violation of conduct. This is clearly a threat. Acknowledging the fact that you did not properly clarify has no relevance to my points in this debate. Yet, Pro threatens that my points are invalid unless I acknowledge that he made a mistake. Okay then, I openly acknowledge that Pro has made a mistake.Rebuttal to Pro's Arguments in Round 1:"Women still earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. For African-American and Hispanic women it's even lower: 64 and 54 cents, respectively.....We are stereotyping when we claim women are unable to work, are weak, and are of less value than men. Why should we pay them less than men when they are working the same job, the same work hours, the same conditions, the same education, and the same experience?"-Pro is drawing false assumptions from his provided evidence. All his provided evidence proves is that women get paid for their jobs less than men. No where was it said that they are paid less for working the same job, the same hours, conditions, education, and experience! That is absurd! If a woman has the same job as a man and works the same hours, they will get paid the same! However, women generally get paid less because they don't have the same jobs as men. -My mother gets paid significantly less than my uncle not because her employers are sexist, but because she worked at a fabric company and my uncle is the agent for Coca-Cola in Burma!-This is because my uncle is more educated and experienced than my mother. About a few decades ago, women worked lower-paying jobs than men because they were generally less educated. This is not unfair, it is completely fair. If an employer has to choose between two people, it would be logical and fair for him to choose the one more educated. -However, nowadays, the number of females and males being educated are pretty much the same, so there is less of a distinction. My cousin (who's a girl) for example, is training to be a plastic surgeon, which decades ago were mainly men.-I fail to see how this is not fair."I have now proven this point using two sources. It cannot be refuted."-And I just refuted it. I acknowledge the validity of your first source, but will ignore your second source completely. I would like to remind Pro that when looking for sources, it is generally more reliable to search for sources written by more neutral writers. "Magsforwomen" is not a reliable source when discussing to issue of sexism. There is a whole website dedicated to proving that aliens have infiltrated our planet and taken human form. That's not a very reliable source is it? -Furthermore, I know for a fact that that source is either wrong or blindly biased. Just because you have a source doesn't mean it's right. We spent a whole hour discussing this issue in my economics class. As it turns out, organizations do not pay lesser salary, give lower increments and reduce the growth potential of their women employees in comparison to their male employees. There are even organizations owned and run by women. If an organization gives more growth potential for their male emplyees than female emplyees (which they do not), it is strictly and genuinley because that particular male is actually doing a better job than the female."Magforwomen.com continues with the following statements"-You are basing most of your arguments off of a biased source. I'm not acknowledging them especially since I know for a fact that one of their statements is false."Here is an example: A man graduates from Harvard at the top of his class. A year later, a woman graduates at the top of her class from the same school. They both have the same education, experience, and credentials. Both apply for the same job. The man, more than likely, will receive that job simply because he is a man."-Pro is making up examples to support his claims. I could just as easily say: A man and women graduate with equal education, experience, and credentials, but when applying for a job, the woman was selected because she is a woman.-But instead of making up an example, I will provide a real example from my mother. She recently applied for a job with a Taiwanese fabric company and there was another man applying for the same job. However, she was the one accepted rather than the man."What if it were your daughter or your wife that endures this sexism? What if a great friend of yours goes through this? You will surely sympathize with them, support them, comfort them, and take action."-But they don't endure this. You know why? Because society is no longer tolerant of sexism. Laws were made decades ago in several countries, abolishing sexism, and now my female friends do not endure sexism. Therefore we shouldn't change this. It's already good as it is.Addendum:-Con has not met his BOP-Con has made more violations of conduct, even threatening me.-He has not effectively argued any part of his two part syllogism.Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(fallacy)