Feminism is not sexist.

To begin, my opponent misunderstands the issue that I have with their use of the definition. There is an assumed difference between human rights and women's rights within said definition. It is assumed in the definition that women have rights that are not equal to men's, and given this, it is necessary to advocate for them. My opponent presumes that "women's rights" equal "human rights", without an explanation of why we should conclude this. If it is assumed that "women's rights" are "human rights", there is no reason to advocate for women's rights specifically, and thus it necessarily becomes sexist that feminism focuses on women. This argument from my opponent does not refute what I have said; it actually reinforces it. My opponent also, once again, fails to address Sexual and Domestic Violence laws, and wholly misunderstands my position. I have already explained my reasons for connecting these laws to feminism: "The reason why this is crucial to my arguments, and truly this whole debate, is that it leads to the support of laws that are made to support women's rights. Such things as protection under the law and voting are some rights that can be, and have been, advocated for. As such, they fall into the realm of 'feminism'. .. "This is from Round 4. PRO's attempt to argue that a law is only feminist if it supports the equal rights of men and women is flawed, as the only mention of equal rights of the sexes is in reference to justification for the advocacy of women's rights. (See Feminism definition per Round 1) PRO's argument fails to address this. PRO then argues, per Tu Quoque, that I am guilty of the exact same act, of neglecting portions of a definition. However, that is exactly my point. By advocating for women's rights, feminism creates a situation wherein "the equality of the sexes" is not the result; rather, a bias towards women, and against men, is the result. Again, PRO's argument supports my position. PRO seems to be interested in my argument against her analogy, despite my reasoning as to why it is to be viewed as weak. Again, I shall refer my opponent and the audience to my arguments regarding this: 'What do atheists advocate for that is definitive of atheism? What advocacy do atheists support that is definitive of atheism? Perhaps the only thing that could be argued here, in relation to advocacy, would be a removal of religion from major institutions. This might be considered advocacy on behalf of rights, insofar as freedom of (and from) religion is concerned. However, this is not a crucial part of the atheist position. Again, I say that PRO's analogy is weak, as there attributes that Feminism has (mainly activism) that Atheism does not have as part of the ideology. As such, we start in a position where any Argument from Analogy cannot stand. My analogy begins with two ideologies that promote the rights of two groups, that then produce two different results. Then, my opponent critiques my Tax Analogy as "pointless". Simple Rebuttal to a Simple Assertion: No, it isn't. Complex Rebuttal: My analogy is closely related to the current situation with voting rights. Men must sign up for Selective Service (at least in the US) in order to earn the right to vote, effectively paying a higher tax (as to refuse carries harsh consequences), while women simply turn 18 (effectively paying little to no tax). I would argue there is indeed a point, as this actually elucidates the terminology used. I attempted to keep my arguments in this round as close to the arguments that I have already presented as possible. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I shall now make my Closing Statements. My position was that Feminism is Sexist. In the pursuit of Women's Rights, there are instances of inequality, with a bias towards women, and against men. These biases as evident when one obesrves Sexual Violence, the VAWA and Domestic Violence laws, and Selective Service and Voting. I presented arguments that I believe justify making a connection between Feminism and these laws, which I have mentioned above. Each of these areas have had a plethora of activism in relation to how they affect women. Meaning that these laws have special considerations for women (VAWA, Sexual Violence), or at least do not address women (Selective Service). This leads to a scenario wherein women are advantaged, and men are, by comparison, advantaged. I have provided an analogy that I believe displays this. In my refutations of PRO's arguments, I argued for the weakness of the "Atheism-Feminism" Analogy, pointing out the flaws that are present in the decision to compare the two. I then provided my own analogy, which I view as stronger than the one provided by PRO. In relation to the arguments provided by PRO, I pointed out the flawed reasoning present in PRO's inclination to argue through the secondary clause of the definition provided. I mentioned that to argue that utilizing the clause "equality of the sexes" to attempt to refute my arguments is not a strong form of argumentation, given that the equality of the sexes is simply the grounds which justifies the advocacy of women's rights, it is not that for which feminists advoacate. Given the arguments provided, I believe I have provided strong reasons to believe that Feminism is indeed sexist. My job was to argue against the reolution, to the effect of "Feminism is sexist". PRO was to argue in favor of the resolution, to the effect of "Feminism is not sexist". To the voters, if I have given sound reasons for the sexist nature of Feminism, refuting the resolution, Please vote CON. If PRO has provided arguments to negate mine and affirm the resolution, please vote PRO. My thanks to my opponent for engaging in this debate with me.