Women are being treated unfairly in the United States.

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking my opponent for his response. I must admit, when I started this debate, I was convinced I would win regardless of what my opponent claimed. Now that my opponent has made his argument, I had to reread it multiple times before any refutations came to mind. His argument is splendid and I must concede to the notion that my argument was largely unsourced and weak. I do apologize. In my rebuttals, I intend to defend my arguments and attack my opponent's. I am no longer as confident that I will win, but I shall still attempt to claim the victory. The choice is obviously not mine, for it is the judges'. I do, however, intend to prove to them what I am capable of. RebuttalsMy opponent begins with his preface. I intend to address one line in particular, which is "[t]o suggest that problems must have a intentional,existential, maleficent cause is basic and misleading, and simply listing issues does not comment in any way on their cause." As a matter of fact, my opponent is correct. I simply listed issues women face, while not stating how they are in any way caused by sexism. I do, however, believe my point was implied, but I don't think my opponent or anybody else noticed it. Therefore, I will directly state it: I do not see how my points are not caused by sexism. If they are not caused by sexist discrimination, then what are they caused by? Is this alternative cause logical? My opponent argues that the wage gap is not caused by sexism. He argues that "men work longer at work in a given week than women. Part of the reason for this is the likelihood of women having children, and being expected to care for them, a claimed form of sexism." He then says, "when the major maternal factor is removed, women actually make more money in full-time jobs then men." I must say, my opponent's arguments are great and mine were weak, but the fact of the matter is that sexism is a valid interpretation, given these facts. As I said before, "[e]ducation, one of man’s bare essentials in the present age, is also deprived to many female students. Even in developed countries, professors think of their male candidates as more capable and tend to ignore the female candidates." Sexism may not be the direct cause of the wage gap, but it is a factor that should not be ignored. The lack of education, in comparison to men, implies sexism and should be taken into consideration by my opponent. Regarding the religious quote, my opponent said this: "With that said, this quote seems to contain no connection to the United States, other than that much of the population is religious. In the United States, religion is neither recognized nor institutionalized, and so cannot be federally sanctioned in this way." I fully recognize the first amendment and that religion is not recognized or institionalized in the United States, but many people act this way. The TEA Party, for example, is, in a sense, founded upon the Bible and is, in my view, extremely sexist. "Once again, prophets and professors far to often look down on their famle students in other countries, as the quote makes clear. This is simply not the case in the US, as female enrollment in colleges has officially surpassed male enrollment, as well as impressively dominating the educational workforce in America." I grant my opponent this. "With no back-up or evidence for Pro's story, as seems to be a theme, Pro claims that a business will hire a man over an equally/better qualified women as a result of sexism. Not only do the facts not support this rather puerile anecdote, but it is also logically bankrupt. Why would a business, free of the chains of bureaucratic meddling, hire a lesser worker simply because of their sex? As all good entrepreneurs ought to know, better employees means better production, and until this spurious claim of discrimination is defended properly, it should be dismissed." I see my opponent's case here, yet I do not agree. I must concede to the notion that "better employees means better production", which is true - I intend to be an entrepreneuer one day, so I should know this - but men are not always the better employees. Sexism is declining in this society, which is great, but it is still not obliterated. Men, as I have shown, can obtain certain jobs more easily than women simply because of gender. My argument and my rebuttals are both weak, I must concede. However, I tried my best with the limited time I had to write this. I am afraid I will lose this debate, and if my opponent does win, I shall accept it, but I tried and that is what matters. I tried. I look forward to my opponent's refutations and, eventually, the outcome of this debate.