There is a rational basis to deny fertile, young women employment

(Arguments are indexed. To find the argument, just do a search for it...example: "CC12" will return an argument about working women and divorce in my round #3.)(sources from rounds #2 and #3)(PRO's words in quoted italics)Hmm. Before I close, two points:1) PRO has resorted to ad hominem. "Churlish" is not a civil form of address. I ask that conduct be taken for this...I did not expect such behavior from my opponent, especially after giving him the benefit of the doubt with sources last round.2) PRO states: "...all people who represent themselves are operating at the height of irrationality."It is not the "height of irrationality," it is simply irrational. No one in their right mind would do it - such cases are typically lost even by skilled attorneys representing themselves.ClosingPRO has dropped the vast majority of his arguments upon rebuttal. I will address what remains.Rationality Necessitates LogicPRO continues to misinterpret his own resolution, and faults his inability to understand it on my ostensibly "churlish" behavior.PRO is correct that contrapositives only work on conditional statements, but any valid argument, indeed any valid resolution, can be stated as a conditional. Here's a simple example: "Fire is Hot."X= FireY = HotX -> Y"If we're considering the qualities of fire, one such quality is that it must be hot."Contrapositive:nY -> nX"If something is not hot, then it is not fire." The logic holds. And, "Fire is Hot" can indeed be expressed as a conditional.---For PRO's resolution, the logic is quite simple: "There is a rational basis to deny YFFs employment."X = Set of decisions with a rational basisY = Denying YFFs employment is a decision for considerationX -> Y ...i.e., "If we are considering the set of decisions with a rational basis, thendenying YFFs employment falls within this set."Contrapositive:nY -> nX...i.e., "If NOT denying YFFs employment is a decision for consideration, then we areno longer considering a set of decisions with a rational basis."In plain English:"To NOT deny YFFs employment has NO RATIONAL BASIS." This is exactly what I stated in the prior round. As I stated before, another way to say this is that "no one in their right mind would hire a YFF."---To contrast PRO's resolution with a rational approach, let's replace "deny employment" with "discrimination": "There is a rational basis for employers to pay YFFs less."X = Set of decisions with a rational basisY = Paying YFFs less for work is a decision for consideration. [etc] Plain English:"For employers to NOT pay YFFs less has NO RATIONAL BASIS." Both PRO/CON agree that all else being the same, if a woman becomes PREGNANT, she will necessarily take time off for maternity leave, time off that a man will not take. Her employer bears inherent business risks (like turnover) associated with her pregnancy which is similar to any other prolonged incapacitation that an employer insures against, thus resulting in the woman being paid less overall for her work. My round #3 plan goes over this in detail.Whether or not you, the reader, agree with my plan is irrelevant to this debate - I do not have burden of proof. I merely present it as a rational alternative to PRO's absolutist and draconian ideal. Denying employment is too extreme a solution for this problem.---PRO desires to have a conversation about decisions with "a rational basis" without using proper logic. Granted, I'm guessing he was intrigued by Robert Jordan's predicament, but PRO has become quite mean-spirited in venting his frustrations with logical assertions. His behavior is inappropriate.Per my analysis, PRO's resolution is the same as "No one in their right mind would hire a YFF," and that the primary reason for such an assertion is because YFFs take 6 out of 312 months for maternity leave (less than 2% of a woman's time in the workforce while fertile), and only if they get PREGNANT. This is absurd...Denying women employment on a general level has no historical basis, is absolutely draconian, beyond misogynistic, and completely irrational. A minor dock to a paycheck would be much more appropriate.The continual absurdity of PRO's argument is apparent when he labels an entire section "Employment is not Denied", when this debate is all about denying YFFs employment. It seems PRO is now arguing against his own resolution in his closing statements.Keep in mind that this debate is specific about the rationality of a certain decision. Rationality requires precise use of logic to ascertain validity and soundness. PRO's argument is neither valid nor sound - it is not rational.Correlation is Simply Not CausationPRO has updated his sources and has thus corrected the problems I cited in round #3. What PRO has not done is to address any of my points. PRO has instead dropped ALL of them - ALL of [CC1 - CC18] are valid. I will repeat them below. 1. "Career women cheat more frequently."- [CC11] Even elderly women in nursing homes are cheating more frequently. Again, the true source of infidelity and promiscuity is the baby boomer/Free Love mentality [CC3], [10], not working YFFs. PRO dropped this direct refutation of his claims.- Yes, people cheat with their co-workers, but they also meet their spouse at work - it is the most common place where people meet their future spouse. [13]- PRO's solution is to keep women at home, thereby turning the home into either a prison or a baby-making factory.2. "Career women divorce more often."- [CC12] Absolutely inconsequential correlation - it increases the chance by "two tenths of one percentage point". PRO dropped this as well.- Furthermore, recall: work does not cause divorce...rather divorce causes work. Dropped by PRO.3. "Career women have fewer kids."- [CC13] More is not better. Welfare moms have 3 times the birth rate as the rest of the population. Dropped by PRO.- PRO's new chart has the exact same problems as I addressed in [R2]. BOTH MEN AND WOMEN are responsible for fewer births. There is no rational basis to single out only women - by this logic, men should be denied employment as well.---PRO concludes: "...denying YFF [employment] will [not only] limit the probability of infidelity, it will in turn limit the probability of divorce." Well, why not just mutilate their genitalia, tie them up and gag them - you know, the whole "Rwandan" option? That'll teach them...can't divorce if you can't speak or write, can't you? Won't cheat if you can't enjoy sex, can't you? Living a life locked in your own house awaiting the "pleasures" of marital rape or worse is barely a step up from such cruel and draconian measures.Conclusion- I've set up numerous hurdles PRO had to clear in order for his argument to be valid:N1) Any of PRO's arguments must be specific to the target group - YFFs. PRO continually proffered arguments that applied to both men and women (both of his charts, most of his correlations), which do not clear this hurdle; otherwise men should also be denied employment for the same reasons and we would have no workforce. Pregnancy is also not a necessary condition to being YFF, and thus also does not clear this hurdle.N2) PRO's resolution necessitates absolute levels of discrimination. PRO's resolution fails the hardest here. PRO simply has not thought the resolution through. Denying employment results in an extremely draconian lifestyle for women, and only for women. It also leaves no room for wage flexibility.N3) This hurdle frames the discussion around general employment, no problems here.- The resolution is absurd, resulting in PRO dropping nearly all of his arguments and making strange and lopsided accusations against women. Most of what he states (divorce, infidelity, smaller families) have shared responsibility between men AND women, yet he only targets women, and only when they are working. It simply has no rational basis.Thanks to PRO for hosting and to you for reading this debate - it was fun. VOTE CON.[13] http://www.snopes.com...