Sexism is still an issue in modern society.

RebuttalsI would now like to grasp the opportunity to refute my opponent's claims and I will respond to each of his points clearly and strongly. Without further ado, I will now commence my refutations. "Pro puts forth to substantiate that sexism is a problem for society, i[n] the following unsourced statement." Not all claims need to have sources. Common knowledge and logic do not need to be sourced. "1: Pro has not shown how, if divorce laws did favour women, it should be a terrible problem for society.2: Pro has not substantiated that divorce laws would be sexist, if they favour women.3: As i have already argued and sourced (1), it is common for women to retain the child after a break up because it is they who were the primary care givers during the relationship. I will also add, the younger the child is the stronger the bond with the mother due to feeding, especially breast feeding. (2)4: In the vast majority of cases then it is not descrimination and prejudice based on sex which leaves the child with the mother, but thought for the best interests of the child, founded on information and reason." I will now respond to each of the points above. 1. I believe it was implied that this is terrible for society. 2. The key word here is 'favoring'. Favoring a gender simply because of the gender is sexist. 3. If it were a very young child, I would understand the mother winning custody of the child. However, say it were a situation in which the child were a teen, you cannot immediately say that the mother is the best person to have custody of the child. 4. My opponent does not prove how and why mothers are the best caregivers for children. He does provide an argument for why women should have custody of their children, but he completely ignores the fathers. What happens to them? "1: He declares that this gap is caused by sexism but makes no effort to show that it is.2: He declares that the gap is "hideous" but makes no effort to describe why it is.3: I have already argued strongly against wage gaps being indicative of sexism in my opening argument. Men have the capacity to be physically and mentally more productive. Their higher peak IQ affords them the top jobs, which often pay 10 fold the salary of a mere 'good' job, raising the average mens salary in completely non-linear fashion. I also argued that women are guaranteed to suffer impaired ability, at least a couple of days each month, lowering their objective worth in the workplace.4: It follows then that prejudice is not necessarily the causal factor behind any wage gap.5: His inclusion of African-American and Hispanic women would be indicative of racism, not sexism, so is invalid."I will respond to the above points: 1. This is clearly sexism. I do not need to source anything for that particular statement. I have a counter-question: How is it NOT sexism? 2. My opponent clearly does not understand the seriousness of this. 3. I grant my opponent this.4. The wage gap is clearly caused by sexism. Women, just like men, are capable of doing work and supporting a family. Why should they be treated differently then men? Why can't women and men get paid the same for the same job? This is clearly sexism. 5. I grant my opponent this. "1: He doesn't source any data to show what people assume.2: He doesn't show how big strong men holding a door open for visibly smaller, less strong women, would be a problem for society3: He doesn't even show that holding a door open for a lady is sexism, as by his own definition sexism is "descrimination or devaluation". I failed to see how being thoughtful of the needs of women equates to either."1. Things that are common knowledge to do need to be sourced. 2. There is a clear difference between sexism and manners. Holding a door open for a weaker woman is of course acceptable, but treating a woman as weaker when she is not is clearly sexism. 3. This has already been discussed. "1: Transgender is not a sex. Sex is strictly biological. Transgender refers to someone whose gender identity differs from their sex. (3)2: The treatment of transgender folk, even if they were a sex, can be shown to be caused by a host of other factors such as religious beliefs."1. Some people are born as both genders. I was referring to those people as wel. Perhaps I used the wrong term. 2. Religion may be a factor, but sexism is as well. "He does not contend my analogy, designed to show that sexual preference for certain jobs is based on reason and the well-being of everybody, rather than sexism. It also showed that the casting of such preference as 'sexism', and 'hideous', is in-fact destructive to society.He only takes issue with my accessory example of tribal culture, but he doesn't respond to it. He only makesunsourced statements about the accomplishments of women; 'it was women that created agriculture'. If it was, thats great.... but it has no bearing on the discussion which is that sexism exists and is problematic for our society." The above points are not to my liking. Honestly, Con's analogy made no sense to me and I would appreciate for him to please explain it thoroughly. And now I will take a few moments to discuss my opponent's tribal statement. In tribal cultures, society was different; laws were different; traditions were different; the people were different. During those times, it was expected for a man to hunt and a woman to care for the young. However, in modern society, this would be a large issue. If the woman CHOOSES to do so and the man CHOOSES to do so, that would be acceptable by all means. However, we cannot EXPECT the two genders to take these roles. It is their decision to make. "1: Pro has yet to provide any example of sexism even existing. That is, descrimination or devaluation based on a persons sex. I am sure examples exist but he is yet to touch on any. The examples he has given are explained by men having more merit or worth, rather than descrimination or devaluation against women, merely because they are women -sexism."I provided plenty of examples of sexism. The examples of sexism I provided regarded sexism because of gender simply. "2: Pro has not provided any argument which shows sexism to be a problem for the society at-large."My argument was a little weak, I grant my opponent this. "3: Pro has failed to offer any rebuttal to my argument showing that enforced "equal opportunities" and pay would be destructive to society."If anyone failed, it was my opponent. His main argument was completely irrelevant and made no sense. He was not focusing on the topic of the debate, yet I did. It was Con that failed to even make a solid main argument. His rebuttals are even worse. "4: I must confess, I don't even know what "MLA FORMAT SOURCING" is, but I would like to remind voters that points for sources should be on the basis of reliability and relevence rather than formatting. I have not only provided more relevant and reliable sources (Pro's only sources are media publications), but also much greater quantity, providing multiple reliable sources for the most important statements." I did not utilize as many sources and I must apologize. I urge the voters to grant my opponent the 'reliable sources' points. However, I would like to make my opponent aware that the MLA format for citations should be common knowledge. And even if he has no knowledge of it, he can find free online citation creators such as Easybib and Citation Machine. In conclusion, my opponent misinterpreted my writings, provided for a weak main argument, stated irrelevant things, misunderstood me, avoided the topic, failed to refute my points, and failed at his duty. I want the voters to consider this. I now close my rebuttals and allow my opponent to post his rebuttals. Sources: I did not use any sources in this argument because I did not feel the need to. If I manage to refute my opponent's points - which I did - then his sources will automatically be considered irrelevant. I did, however, provide sources in my opening argument.