Female should be treated equal to their male counterparts

To sum up our arguments thus far, I'll provide a concise synopsis: 1. My opponent asserted the normative argument that women ought to be treated equally, I. E. Treated like men. She provides no justification or rationale for its utility other than its mere statement. I offered that women's reproductive utility is far too significant--in that it's relatively scarce--for them to be treated like men. 2. My opponent stated that she was appalled that women weren't allowed to vote before 1920. I refuted this by pointing out that women had the right to vote in the Western Territories during the Western Frontier, Which occurred before 1920's. She conceded the point and claimed that women were allowed to vote in just a very few amount of states. I refuted that as well by pointing out the more than few states where women were allowed to vote. 3. My opponent asserted that it was unfair women had fewer opportunities in the military until 2016 while failing to consider the context. I pointed out that most women couldn't pass the physical tests until 2016, When the standards were lowered. Her argument was premised on numerical representation, Rather than, Once again, Utility. I then pointed out that it was the military's prerogative to choose their servicemen in accordance to their goals. 4. My opponent offered that she was disgusted that marital-rape remained legal until 1993. I pointed out that the scope of conjugal rights didn't acknowledge rape between spouses given that sex between them was an entitlement. She then offered a citation of disparate incidents between males and females while failing to point out its relevance to the legal quality with which she was disgusted. I then pointed out that the capacity to rape one's spouse, Be it male or female, Was "equal. " 5. My opponent cited a skewed statistic to repeat the claim that 1 in 5 women are likely to be raped. Not only did I point out this skew, But I also provided a more reliable statistic by the United States Department of Justice which demonstrated that the actual number was 1 in 52. 6. My opponent cited countries which practice Sharia law as examples of women's being treated as second class citizens. I contradicted her statement by asserting that women are treated as "human protectorates, " and the authority men have over them is associated with the responsibility men have for them. I failed to expand upon this due to character limits, Time limits, And the focus it requires. 7. My opponent asserted that it's wrong for women with the same qualifications as men to be paid less than their male counterparts and cites the wage gap. She fails to once again consider context. I pointed out that the wage gap can be explained, Even justified, Once it's controlled for by education, Time flexibility, Preferences, Field of work, Parental status, Etc. I also pointed out that women with identical education, Skill, And parental status make 3% more than their male counterparts. (Consider this: if women were being paid less for the same production provided by men, Why are they not being hired more frequently? Wouldn't the profit-maximizing capitalist hire the best production at a cheaper price? 19. 5 cents less an hour to be precise? And anyone versed in economics would know that this would cause a rightward shift in the demand curve, Assuming labor supply remains the same, Resulting in an increased wage. ) 8. My opponent cited statistics on the feminization of poverty. I didn't address this due to character limitations. 9. My opponent cited the "pink tax. " This argument is utterly inane given that hygienic products for females not only yield a higher cost of production, But yield a high consumer demand. If in fact male and female hygienic products were the exact same, The solution would be simple: purchase male products. The shift to male products of course would increase demand for them, Which would result in an increase price. (Either way, One is going to pay more eventually. ) Women control for 80% of consumer spending, And the price of products will reflect this. 10. My opponent asserted that women having breasts and hips doesn't mean that they should be objectified. I claim that it is the exact reason they are objectified because said parts, I. E. Breasts and hips, Have reproductive utility. 11. My opponent stated that women's biological differences shouldn't be taken into account when considering equality, While disregarding the logic on which that argument is premised, When declaring that children and adults should be treated differently because biological of differences. Enough said. 12. She proposed that we are entitled to equality and non-discrimination while failing to propose how we would disregard the differences which manifest among us and the subjective values they afford each of us. She stated equality only to state equality. She hasn't demonstrated how this produces any sort of utility outside of saying that we're equal. 13. Probably her most prominent failure in this debate: she referred to me as "Omar. " That and that alone is enough for her to lose this debate, :) Essentially, My opponent has not provided much of a justification to the reason females ought to be treated equal. She disregards context, Competence, Preferences, And, Most of all, Differences. Equality is an asserted entitlement with no moral utility. It provides only privileges to mitigate social, Economic, Political, And military failures. I on the other have provided arguments acknowledging the differences between males and females while delineating the utility in these differences. In my arguments, I've made no allusions to an ideal which alienates our essence, But captures and rationalizes it, Namely our roles in reproduction. Our differences inform neither superiority nor inferiority. We are a binary which provides an essential service to the furtherance of our species. Thank you Republicrat20 for your candor and respectful conduct. And thank you to the interested readers. Vote well.