Women are more to blame for the attitude of men toward them than men themselves are.

So now on to the actual debate. This debate is a pro-centered debate, meaning the burden of proof is on the pro to successfully prove that "Women are more to blame for the attitude of men toward them than men themselves are. " This means he must prove without a doubt that women must take the highest blame of the attitude of the opposite sex. The con will be running a balanced negative case, which means I will argue that society or other sources are more to blame than women themselves. This means that women and men can share the blame equally. The Con should win this debate if four scenarios happen. Scenario 1-The pro fails to show how women are responsible for the attitude of men. Scenario 2-The pro fails to show how women more to blame than men when dealing with the attitude of menScenario 3-The con shows how other sources are to blameScenario 4-The con shows how the blame is shared. Please note that the only way the pro can actually win this debate is by scenario 2. If the pro somehow succeeds in scenario 1, that does not mean the pro wins due to the resolution including the word "more". So it does not matter if the pro can show how women are responsible for the attitude of men, they have to be to most responsible. With this being said I would like to present 2 arguments for the con caseArgument 1-Society is a greater influence on the attitude of men toward women. Society is defined as "A human society is a group of people involved in persistent interpersonal relationships, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. "[1]The basis of this argument is simple. All people interact with society and this society determines cultural expectations. Men interact with women and together determine to social customs. Society is a greater entity than men so thus, they are included. This is crucial because the pro"s argument is already shown via society and not just men. The only way the pro can disprove this argument is by showing how men are not a part of Society and do not interact with a women. This is next to impossible due to every man having a mother so there has to be some interaction. This argument would be under scenario 3 in the intro and should give the con a victory if ignored. Argument 2-Since Society determines the cultural expectation, the blame must be shared between men and women for the attitude of men towards women. This is another basic simple argument. Since society is composed of both men and women and society determines how men view women, thus the blame must be shared since both males and females are a part of society. These cultural expectations are merely expectations and are not forcing anyone to do anything. This argument would fall under scenario 4 of the in the intro and if this argument is ignored then it grants the con a victory. Now I will address the pro"s case. The pro"s case was very interesting. It was a less of a structured argument and more of the ramblings of someone. Regardless of the fact, the con will try to piece together the argument made by the pro by going through each argument in the order presented by the pro. Free willThis argument is invalid and voided, due to the fact that it is simple a red herring. The resolution does not discuss free will at all, and the pro is trying to modify the agreed upon resolution. He is also not actually discussing the concept of free will [2]. From the definition of free will ""it is a commonly-held intuition that we have free will. " So thus the Pro already has to prove how free will exists does not exists (Later on in his case he shows proof of free will), if the pro continues on argue this red herring. This debate could be over at this point simple due to this one point alone, because as the pro says his case is based on the absence of free will. The pro states that they could change their initial argument but this would be breaking standard debate protocol as I am attacking a case that will no longer be valid, thus wasting my first chance to attack the pro"s case. HistoryThe history argument is irrelevant and extremely baseless. There is no evidence of what the pro saying being true. He is making baseless claims without and slight amount of proof. This argument is also an Appeal to Antiquity, since it believes old customs dictate current events. And these customs further increase the argument of Society dictating the attitude more than women themselves. Also his source used to back up the point is extremely biased and does not actually relate to what the pro was saying. This site that the pro cites uses a form of hack science for their claims and is not really studying genes. Liberal SocietyI fail to see how this point is related to the debate at all. A society"s political stance does not determine how men view women, and if it did then this backs up the Society point I keep on talking about. This point has another biased source that uses hack science to prove its point. The con feels this point was made to express the pro"s political thoughts even though the resolution does not need the personal opinions of either side. The pro tries to rationalize their argument by giving a baseless consequence. Women"s RightsAnother Red Herring by the pro, this claims states that women should not have right or the nation will decay. This point was made without any basis and should be dropped and forgotten about. I"ll group fashion designers in this claim due to both not really being topical. This argument also breaks debate etiquette by not proving the claim he is stating in the current round. Women"s Mind and the fallacy of female sexualityThis argument tried to illustrate why women are fundamentally flawed, simply due to them choosing a mate. This example/scenario illustrates how free will exists as the woman in this example is choosing mate based on nothing from society. If the woman applied by the rules of society then the father would dictate the woman"s mate choice due them being in society (According to the logic presented by the pro) This argument also only gave an example of what the pro thinks and did not really elaborate on how this would work in theory. The abusive husbands point and the feminists point should be ignored since it contributes nothing to this debate. I await the pro"s response. [1]- . https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]- . https://en.wikipedia.org...