The United States of America Should Elect a Female President

I am not sure if my opponent is arguing in support of Keke2002, or her own stance, as she does not seem to make firm claims for the latter, and even her closing statement is in relation to the past debate. Non the less, I will try to keep things in the context of this debate as best I can.First, let me address what it is my opponent claims about Keke2002's argument. While it is true the resolution is written differently, the intent behind it has not changed. For instance, though the resolution said nothing on the subject, Keke's first post clearly indicated she was thinking within the context of America. Further more, her argument was not simply one of "women should have the potential for being president", but rather, that a "woman should be president." So my opponent is being a tad intellectually dishonest when saying I have "re-framed the resolution". I have in words, but the intent is the same as the previous debate. There is no significant change.Now then. Let's move on from this subject.1. Semantics of 'Should'Though I reject my opponent's definition, as I think non of them fit the context, even if we were to accept them, they all still share the same fatal flaw: They are all suggesting we place value on irrelevant criteria. To say that "it would be nice" or "could we perhaps have" a female president is to desire a president based on criteria which in no way is relevant to the role of the president. This is no different than saying someone should be president because they have red hair, or a gold tooth. It is illogical, and further more, unjust. This makes it immoral. Yes, immoral. Allow me to explain.As I have often said, nobody wishes to suffer. Not a single soul. Even those who might wish to suffer, only desire a certain kind of suffering. They still would not wish to experience what they and others would consider "true" suffering. Given then that nobody wishes to suffer, society should focus on maximizing freedoms, while limiting harms, so as to bring about the best possible reality for everyone. This should be the ultimate moral guideline for any decision making. And it is under this moral premise that my opponent's argument is immoral. When we choose presidents on irrelevant criteria, an injustice, it is harmful. And when we say "so and so should be president because they are a woman", we are, ironically enough, oppressing men from becoming president. For just as you advocate for someone to be president based on their sex, you then tell the other sex "you should NOT be president". This is oppression. This is corruption. Nobody deserves to be supported or shunned from the presidency because of their sex; a thought hard fought for might I remind my opponent by women's rights activists. If we wish to maximize freedoms, and limit harms, we must advocate for people to become president regardless of their sex, not because of their sex. To say anything less is sexism and unjust discrimination.2. Qualifications of a PresidentMy opponent, though she speaks true, simplifies what it means to be president. Yes, they must best represent the people, but there are several qualities a leader must have in order to truly lead a people. For instance, you may find someone who matches the ideals you hold, but what if they are spineless? What if, even if they agree with you, they are too passive to stand up for you in the face of opposition? What if someone does not know how to be sociable with people? What if one is prone to insult and outlandish behavior, that could potentially endanger them self and others around them? And let us just think of the basics of being a president. What if someone has no idea how Congress functions, or how to create laws? What if in fact they are illiterate? Yes, the president must represent the people, but it is not as simple as my opponent makes it out to be.You will however notice that non of the above is helped by being male or female.In any case, I agree with my opponent's claim, that any woman can represent the people as any man can; which is precisely why being a woman makes you no more desirable than being a man. Being female or male has no bearing on how good of a President one would make. Being female does not in anyway make you qualified to be President. It is your personality, your knowledge, your character, your ideals and convictions, that determine how best you represent the people, and how good of a president you would make. Not your body. Not your genitalia. Having a vagina makes you no more qualified than having a penis.My opponent goes on to complain about how presidents are elected, however, she never fully fleshes out the idea. She merely highlights some supposed problems with how we elect individuals, and...that's it. She never makes a point out of it. And while I agree with her complaints about the way presidents are elected, it is entirely irrelevant to this debate. Which is probably why she made no point out of it. The problems with how we elect presidents have no bearing on whether or not we should choose a president based on their bodily sex. It is an entirely separate issue.My opponent goes on to state that more than half of the U.S.A's population is female. While this may be true, how this has any relevancy to the debate is beyond me. If my opponent is trying to say that because of this, women should be president, there are several flaws. (1) Being male does not make you incapable of representing females, (2) being female does not mean you inherently represent females, and (3) again, to claim that someone should be president based on their sex is to say someone else should not be president based on their sex. That is oppression.Finally, my opponent claims that because women can represent the country as well as men, there should at least sometimes be female presidents. But there is no logical connection between those claims. Just because someone has the potential to be president, does not mean they will, or should, be president. For instance, I have the right to try and be president. But do I want to? Hell no. But just because I have the right to be president, does that mean I should "at some point, be president"? According to my opponent, yes. Poppycock. I will do no such thing. What my opponent is doing is committing a propositional fallacy known as "affirming the consequent"[1]. The fallacy goes as follows:If P, then Q.Q.Therefore P.Perhaps the problem may not be as clear as one would like it in this form, so let us take an example from the Wikipedia page:If Bill Gates owned Fort Knox, then he would be rich.Bill Gates is rich.Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.See the problem?In the same way, let us observe what my opponent has just claimed about the Presidency.If women should be president at some point, it would mean we have free and open elections which would allow them to become president.We have free and open elections which would allow a female to become president.Therefore, there should be a woman as a president.The problem is, just because someone CAN be president, does not necessarily mean they SHOULD be president, and for my opponent to try and make that logical connection, is to commit the above logical fallacy. My opponent's argument here is horrendously flawed to the point of being fallacious, and therefore, invalid.So let us review: 1. Whatever definition you choose for "should", they all share the same problem in that they support someone based on irrelevant criteria.2. To say someone should be president because of their sex, it to say someone else should not be president because of their sex.3. Being female makes you no more qualified to be President, or represent the population, than being male.4. My opponent did not flesh their arguments out enough to make a decent point.5. My opponent committed a propositional fallacy, rendering that portion of their argument illogical and invalid.Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...