On balance, Feminism is not needed in the US anymore.

My opponent doesn’t understand why I involved other countries. Again, the resolution leaves room for other countries. If he were to say “ not needed *strictly* in the U.S, then I would have argued merely the U.S. Defending my case C. 1 Sex and violence: My opponent claims that sex trafficking involves other countries that we don’t know about. But yet, they are still brining Women here into the U.S. The U.S should be stricter and cautious on whom they let pass our borders. He then claims that my source was outdated, thus meaning it doesn’t matter. In order for my opponent to have accurately rebutted my case, he must have shown that human trafficking no longer exists, which he didn’t prove. In fact, human trafficking does exist. California and Las Vegas are the most popular states in the U.S for human trafficking. [1] The United States is one of the top three destination points for trafficked victims and California, New York, Texas and Nevada are the top destination states within the country. The most recent statistic that has been provided is in 2013. [2] The FBI’s Innocence Lost National Initiative strives to eradicate the commercial sexual exploitation of children in the U.S. The website states that as of June 2013, 2,700 children have been rescued since the initiative began in June 2003. That is an average of 270 children rescued a year through this FBI effort. The Innocence Lost program runs Operation Cross Country’s (OCC) three-day nationwide efforts to rescue minors in prostitution and goes after those who are exploiting them. The OCC website states the 3,600 children have been rescued since 2003 through Innocence Lost efforts. It is not clear why these numbers differ. Though they were rescued, this merely shows that human trafficking is still an issue. My opponent has failed to prove that it’s not an issue. No matter if you’re a male, or female, human trafficking is a violation of one’s rights. C2. First off, my opponent states “Okay, you still have done nothing to dispute the facts that I listed in the last argument. You have not disputed….” For some odd reason, my opponent thinks that I should have rebutted his case in Round 2? That was not the way you had set up the debate format. Round 2 called for each of our own cases, not for me to rebut yours. You stated that Round 3 is for rebuttals, which is what I’m doing now. I feel as though my opponent is doing this because he doesn’t know how to refute my arguments…so he feels the need to write fluff. So, my opponent states: “You have not disputed:” “Males are far more likely to chose dangerous careers” Where is the evidence? “Males are far more likely to work in higher paying jobs” Not true because I successfully argued that men and women who have the same exact job, and same degree, women still earn less, making your accusation false. “Men work longer hours than women” Not true. If it is true, you don’t provide any evidence. A study in 2013 reported that women and men work equal amount of hours. [3] Here in the U.S., men and women work a nearly equal number of hours, about 50 per week. But once again, women take much more of the household burden. They average 33 hours a week at jobs, and more than 17 hours working around the house. So once again, my opponent makes an accusation without evidence. “Men are likely to pursue high-stress and higher paid areas” Once again, my opponent provides no proof for his claim. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once again, my opponent keeps arguing that I didn’t refute his case in R2, which was not the original format. In round 2, you stated that we were to make a case, which I did. So I don’t understand how you’re saying I should have refuted your arguments. My case on the Wage Gap My opponent states that-- “In order for me to believe this, first of all give statistics on what jobs females apply for. All you have proven is that females apply for jobs with less pay. I have actually proven that Males do apply for more dangerous, and higher paying jobs. You also said 15% of women are in Fortune 500 companies which means that 85% of males make up Fortune 500 companies. That is going to make a significant impact on that 70 cent argument.” Ig you had read my sources provided on the wage gap (which im pretty sure you didn’t because once again you made a false accusation) you would have noticed: ““Women still earn 72 cents for every man a dollar earns. In 2008, women occupied only 15% of board positions of Fortune 500 companies.” This goes for every type of job. It’s not just “dangerous, or high-stress jobs” but for every job. Whether it be an accountant, office worker etc.. My opponent’s case: I merely already refuted everything he has argued in R2 with my case, including my rebuttals. The only thing that I did not refute was: “Now, I shall note how many female Governors there have been. A governor is a huge position of power in the United States of America.” This is merely fluff writing. Sure, when work high jobs, just as men do, but as stated they are still treated unequally, and do not have the same rights as men, such as equality in pay. Sources; [1] http://www.weaveinc.org... [2] http://www.americanthinker.com... [3]http://kfor.com...