The United States of America Should Elect a Female President

1. The Semantics of 'Should' - ContinuedAs I said, I reject my opponent's definition, for it does not fit the context. The reason I say this is, as the WRITER of the resolution, I know which meaning I intended when using the word "should". But in any case, my opponent still wishes to use her definition of the term. As I stated before, either way, all definitions suffer from the same problem. They place value and advocacy on irrelevant traits; one's sex. This is something my opponent has not argued this round. She has not contested that sex is irrelevant to the role of the president, and she has not contested that we should not be choosing a president based on irrelevant traits.So no matter which definition you choose, the flaw is the same, and my opponent is no closer to making a point than she was to begin with. Even if I were to concede to her definition, she still has all her work cut out for her.Now my opponent raises the point that "should" includes the present and future. This is true...and something which was never contested by myself. No, in fact, I took this into account in saying the things I said. When I said that advocating for a female president is oppressive to men, I meant that in ANY situation. For if but one president who is female is elected BECAUSE she is female, that is one presidential era in which the world denied men the presidency, because they were men. This applies to any presidential election, no matter how far into the future you go. So my opponent's point about 'should' applying to the present and future is moot. It has no meaning in this debate.2. Keke2002's ArgumentMy opponent continues to raise up the issue of a past debate. One must wonder if she is aware she is debating this debate, and not the other one. Need I remind her that whatever happened in the last debate is irrelevant. She is debating THIS resolution, not the last, and she is needing to build her OWN arguments, not try to defend Keke2002. She is wasting her's and my own time when she does so.Now my opponent seems to think that my discussing Keke2002 at the beginning as an invitation to debate the things that occurred in that debate. It was not. It was an explanation for as to why I made this debate, nothing more. My opponent, however, seems to wish to ignore this, and instead debate something that is not the debate. Interesting...Non the less, she claims that based on the wording of Keke2002's argument, the definition of MY resolution should be one of a "Desired of expected state". If that is the route she wishes to take, so be it. However, she seems to think that proving this will in of itself somehow win her the debate. As I previously stated, even if I were to concede her definition, she still has ALL her work cut out for her in showing why irrelevant traits should be desired or expected when electing the president. She has made no argument for her case here.Now as for the key point of Keke's argument, "We the women of America need someone to represent us", based on the debate it is implied that Keke thought a woman needed to represent women. However, the reason this statement cannot be construed as merely "a desirable or expected state", is because of the key term 'need'. 'Need' is very different from 'want'. If she has said "We the women of America want someone to represent us", it could very well be construed as a "desirable or expected state". But when someone has a need, it means they do not simply desire something, they MUST have it. Meaning those who can provide it MUST provide it. Meaning, they would have an obligation, or duty, to provide it.Ergo, the wording means obligation or duty, not merely a desirable state, as my opponent continues to attempt to claim.3. The Process of Electing a PresidentFirst, let me thank my opponent for finally taking this and making a point out of it. However, my opponent has created a false dichotomy. She claims the reason for a lack of female presidents is one of the following:A. The majority of people generally prefer a male president.B. The process is somehow biased in favor of men.C. There aren't any adequate female candidates.Now my opponent seems to think I have agreed to dismiss reason C. I ask her to show me whence I made such a concession? I have previously stated that being female makes you no more qualified than being male. However, this does not mean males and females will be equally viable when racing; it means their sex does not hinder nor help them in any way. It is entirely possible that you have unviable female candidates, just as you have unviable male candidates. So I would respectfully ask my opponent not to put words in my mouth.Now as for the reasons themselves, they are simple reasons, that do not take into account the complexity of social structure and human behavior. And because of that, my opponent ignores several other avenues which may be a cause for the lack of a female president. For instance:D. The social structure could encourage women not to pursue such rolesE. Females could perhaps, even if they are equally capable of serving such a role, have an innate biological disposition that makes such a role undesirable to them.F. The system could perhaps not favor men or women, but another class of people (e.g. the wealthy) who happen to be mostly men.G. It could simply be luck.H. Perhaps the female candidates do not get enough media attention.I. Perhaps in relation to that, female candidates are not likely to gain favor in well known parties.I could go on and on, but my characters run low. The point is, my opponent's three reasons are hardly enough to take into consideration the full account of why we haven't had any female presidents thus far. Now my opponent thinks that, if the reason is reason B, and we fixed the issue, somehow this would mean we would see female presidents. But this is the same propositional fallacy she made before, on which I will go into more detail below. Capability to become president does not mean one WILL become president.Now my opponent claims I support reason A. This is why false dichotomies are dangerous people. I ask her to, once again, please show me where it is I ever showed support for such an idea? And if she cannot, I ask her to stop making straw men arguments. That's two logical fallacies you've made now in your arguments.She asks, if males and females are equal in terms of candidacy, what reason can there be for a lack of female president other than sexual discrimination? Well, as I displayed above, lots of reasons! My opponent is trapped in the realm of her own false dichotomy, and cannot see beyond it's veil.Lastly, my opponent seems to equate the only opposing force to 'should not' being 'should'. This is not so. One can say "women should not be prevented from being president" without saying "women should be president". This is another false dichotomy proposed by my opponent. One must wonder why she makes false choices as her arguments. Intentional or not, they are deceptive; a warped logic.4. The Propositional FallacyMy opponent once again, for the third time this round, is being intellectually dishonest about the things I've stated. I did not say, as she did not say, that free and open elections are a consequence of having a female president. I said free and open elections are a consequence of saying women should be president. Why is it my opponent continually misrepresents me? Can she not honestly argue my points, or does she not realize she is being dishonest?In any case, the fallacy still stands. My opponent seems to think that, because there are free and open elections, this somehow means women should be president, or that we should already have had a female president. This is a logical fallacy, a propositional fallacy. And she continues to attempt to defend it.I implore my opponent in the following two rounds to cease her intellectual dishonesty, and to, perhaps, stop supporting a fallacy. If she continues, it will reflect badly upon her.