Feminism is based upon female entitlement to male achievements.

I noted that in order to prove that based on the blanket wording of the resolution, my opponent needed to prove that all feminists hold this belief. My opponent countered by claiming that this is a fallacy of division. Unfortunately, he does not grasp the nature of the fallacy of division, which holds that if an object has a property, then claiming all of its parts must have that property is fallacious. Let me give examples to explain why this fallacy does not apply. If I claim that a Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean and that a Boeing 747 has jet engines, and then conclude that one of its jet engines can fly unaided across the ocean, I have committed the fallacy of division because I am assuming that part of the object has the same property as the whole. In this case, the parts of the object are not independent entities; rather, the engines, wings, etc. literally come together to comprise that object. Now, suppose I have a tablet computer and a desktop. Both are independent objects that we categorize with the set name "computer". If I claim that in order to prove that computers as a whole have touchscreens, both desktops and tablets must have them, my opponent cannot claim that I am committing the fallacy of division since the two types of computers do not come together to create a computer; rather, they are independent objects that we describe with a set called "computer". Similarly, different feminist ideologies are not parts of a feminist theory; rather, feminism is a term used to describe a set of independent theories with specific characteristics. In order to prove that the set used to describe all of the objects has a characteristic, he needs to prove that every object in the set has that characteristic. Feminist Separatism is an ideology that advocates the creation of female-only societies without any materials, objects, inventions, etc. from males. This ideology does not advocate using male achievements, so the set of theories fitting under feminism do not all have that characteristic. My opponent does not fulfill his burden and you automatically negate. He next gives an unsourced argument that contends that "If all people deserve equal political, economic, and social rights, people exist together successfully. Females exist together successfully. Therefore, females deserve equal political, economic, and social rights." He then states that this excludes males. I would like to see the source for this nonsensical strawman. I have never seen any feminist use this type of flawed reasoning, and I highly doubt that he has either. In any case, even if he gives an example of a single feminist who does this, this argument is not a property of the set "feminism" because not all of the feminist ideologies argue this. More importantly, however, this claim is entirely fallacious because it pretends that feminists advocate equal rights based on consequentialist reasons (i.e. it helps people exist together successfully), but feminism argues that people should have these rights because they are human rights, and that they deserve these rights regardless of the benefit to society. Feminists support these rights deontologically and claim that they are natural extensions of human dignity, and not that people have them because it is good for social cohesion. Feminists also note that these rights extend to all humans, so they are not excluding males. In fact, the nature of rights is entirely reciprocal because rights imply moral entitlements, meaning that all individuals, regardless of gender, are due the same protections. Males will not kill females, for example, and females will not kill males, because both groups have the right to life. Undoubtedly, he will respond to this by claiming that I am playing semantic games and that what he really means is that males are entitled to things like rights and an education because other males contributed to them. He is going to say that since females did not create them, they do not have any claim to them and that feminism is wrongfully taking those things from males. What feminism does is explain that this entitlement mindset is nonsense. Males are not any more entitled to social goods than females just because other males created them; in fact, this claim is precisely what he condemns: theft. The ideas and objects that people create belong to them and not to people who share common characteristics with them and thus the people who share characteristics with them have no more claim to them than others. Feminism notes that if males who feel bad about themselves because they are worthless losers and have no achievements of their own can act as leeches claiming partial ownership over the achievements of others, then there is no reason that females cannot also do the same thing by claiming kinship due to common humanity. Feminism is not advocating entitlement to male-owned achievements; it is advocating the equitable distribution of goods that belong to everyone or to no one. In addition, feminists do not want access to goods like rights and education because they want to dominate men; rather, they want basic rights and goods so that they can also contribute to society in a meaningful manner and advance fields such as science and philosophy. Feminists are not trying to take things without reciprocally giving; rather, they are attempting to make sure that females can reciprocate and give back to society. My opponent's brand of anti-feminism would have them benefit, at least marginally through a better lifestyle, from such benefits without giving them an opportunity to return the favor. My opponent might claim that the reciprocal behavior stems from the reproductive capacities of females, but note that this capacity remains the same regardless of the returns that males in a male-dominated society would give. Females are still giving birth regardless of the existence of voting or electricity, for example. So, he argues that not reciprocating for advantages is wrong, but then denies females the opportunity to reciprocate. Feminism, however, wishes to help females gain that chance. Argument 1 attempts to derive the notion that society should force people to prioritize needs over wants through the nonaggression principle. This completely contradicts the nonaggression principle, however; the principle is "a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual's property or person (which may also be considered that person's property), no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination or the principle of self-ownership." [5] What the principle notes is that even if an action has a positive consequence for society or even for the victim of aggression, forcing them to do specific actions is immoral because it violates the principle of autonomy. This completely contradicts my opponent's claim that society should force people into specific roles for consequentialist ends; such an action would be immoral according to the moral philosophy that my opponent decided to champion. This, ultimately, is what feminists argue; rather than forcing people into specific roles, feminists champion the right to autonomy for all people, not just males. His first argument is self-contradictory and flows negative. Even if you buy that we need to prioritize needs over wants, note that this still promotes the goals of feminism. Under traditional societies, females do not have control over their own bodies and were routinely subjected to such autonomy-violating procedures as marital rape, arranged marriages, and domestic violence. Because they were unable to obtain higher education and seek employment, they had no escape valve from situations that threatened their well-being. Feminism advocates fulfilling this need by grating females the capacity to be safe. Argument 2 attempts to claim that gender roles are natural and therefore just. He first argues that males are agents of death and females are agents of life. The problem is that these are socially assigned roles; there is no reason that either gender is intrinsically incapable of pursuing either role. He claims that men are selfishly altruistic based on necessity and cites a study that refutes almost every one of his claims. According to his study, which examines 38 students and attempts to extrapolate the results to all of humanity, when in a group setting in which active and passive roles existed, males took advantage of the active roles every single time, not out of necessity, but rather out of a desire to show off for the females. If females were psychologically predisposed to not exhibit this type of altruistic behavior, then females would have no desire to take the active role and would have taken the passive one. The study notes, however, that females wanted to take the active roles but that the males prevented them from doing so and instead assigned them the stereotypically clerical (passive) role. What this indicates is that there is nothing intrinsic to human nature that prevents females from taking such roles; in fact, in the absence of males, they did. Rather, it was the males who were forcing them to not have those roles that they wanted and were capable of performing. His justification for gender roles is based on the intrinsic difference between males and females by which males want to take active roles and females want to take passive roles, but that difference does not exist according to the study he cited. The difference in role allocation was a result of male forcefulness, and not a result of psychological orientation. Moreover, the notion that females are supposed to be biologically selfish is absolutely false. What the study notes is not that females are likely to be selfish and males altruistic, but rather that males were more likely to engage in heroic-type behavior. All altruistic behavior is not heroic behavior, however. Females engage in altruism even in traditional gender roles since they become the primary care-givers of children. Both genders are inherently capable of altruism. He next attempts to justify gender roles based on physiological differences. He notes that males produce more testosterone than females and have larger brains. While it is true that the male brain is larger, female brains have a greater surface area, more nerve cells, and more cellular connections, meaning that the female brain is more efficient at processing data and using both sides of the brain [1] In addition, the female brain has better memory skills and is much more creative than the brain male is [1]. This is empirically proven by the fact that more females graduate from high school, college, and graduate schools than males [2], have higher GPAs[3], as well as the fact that in July 2012, studies noted that in developed nations in which males and females receive equal educational opportunities, females have a higher IQ than males do [4]. What this means is that even if you believe my opponent's argument that society should force people into specific roles based on characteristics, you still vote for me because feminism advocates putting females in intellectual fields based on their inherent capacity to succeed while my opponent's brand of anti-feminism would not grant females roles that they are suited for. Most importantly, however, even if the evidence I provided is completely disregarded, my opponent's argument devolves into a contradictory notion that argues that we should have gender roles because on average, members of a specific gender will be better at performing tasks than members of the other gender. This ignores, however, the fact that some members of the other gender will be better at performing the tasks at hand than the average member of the gender that is stereotypically assigned that role, and thus prevents those individuals from fulfilling their potential. For example, I have an IQ of 148, was the salutatorian of my competitive private high school, had an extremely high SAT score, was a National Merit Finalist, attend an Ivy League institution, etc. I have more than outstripped my average male counterparts in terms of educational ability. My dream is to become a lawyer. Why should I be denied that dream on the basis that my opponent believes that the average male is better suited to be a lawyer than the average female? Why should a male who is less qualified than I am have that advantage while I do not? Why should I be resigned to a life of cooking, cleaning, and baby-producing for no reason other than the fact that I have a specific set of reproductive organs? Feminism advocates abolishing this type of categorical reasoning and attempts to judge people based on their abilities rather than on their characteristics. This, ultimately, fits my opponent's claim that we should assign people to roles based on their abilities better than his argument that we should blanketly force people into roles based on averages. Even if you believe his "roles" analysis, you still negate because feminism advocates giving people what they deserve based on their qualities while his brand of anti-feminism does not. On to Argument 3. He first lists a variety of male achievements and claims that, absent males, these things would not exist. He conveniently ignores the fact that most of these achievements were conceived of in an era in which females were not permitted to seek higher education and were resigned to fruitless lives as baby-making machines. In light of the testimony that I have provided about female intelligence and educational ability, there is no reason to believe that, absent such type of immoral coercive action, females would not have been able to contribute to such fields as well. In fact, whenever females were able to obtain education, they made stunning contributions to a variety of fields. Lise Meitner discovered nuclear fission and explained how it functioned and thus was responsible for the later research that led to the development of the atomic bomb. Marie Curie discovered radiation. Rosalind Franklin used X-Ray Crystallography to discover the structure of DNA, a discovery that singlehandedly advanced the field of biology. Barbara McClintock revolutionized genetics when she discovered transposons. Dorothy Hodgkin discovered the chemical structure of penicillin, an important discovery that drug companies currently employ to create cheap, penicillin-like alternatives. Hypatia was an Ancient Greek astronomer and mathematician who made important contributions to math and philosophy. There are countless examples of females who have contributed to the advancement of fields that we apply in our daily lives; these are not restricted just to males. In fact, stripping females of their ability to participate in such fields and failing to remember their achievements as my opponent does amounts to little more than claiming ownership over the advancements that they made for society. What this demonstrates is that male sacrifice is not the only tool for advancement; female sacrifice has been critical as well, and that both male and female sacrifice are necessary for society to prosper. Feminism recognizes this; my opponent does not. Feminism is not based on entitlement to male achievements, but rather on entitlement to self-ownership and the ability to author one's own destiny. Sources http://www.thirdage.com... http://www.good.is... https://chronicle.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...