Woman are equal to men

Line by line. "She's a shifting advocacy. I call abuse." >>You attempt to tell me that my argument is completely and totally new? You skew the entire debate and then yell at me for attempting to stop me? My advocacy hasn't changed at all. Round 1: Women are equal to men. Round 2: Reject your interpretation, Women are equal to men. My advocacy has stayed exactly the same in my first round, my second round, and then this round. I have been debating the entire time that women are equal to men. And you proved my point when you said, "I'll agree, because we're all human and we all have the same worth." So now to turn this back on you. You say i'm a shifting advocacy? Look at yourself. Round 1: Women are not literally equal to men. Round 2: Your a shifting advocacy! I notice a small discrepancy. If anyone is going to be losing on this argument it is you. "First of all, I believe that SHE'S the one being unfair on this topic: She gives this 42 character case and expects me to derive all her interpretations of the resolution/topic she wrote from it. I don't think so. If she's going to define anything in this debate, it better be FIRST ROUND" >>Oh really? Lets look at the context of my first round. "Woman are equal to men. They just don't do the same things. Men are better than woman at some things, and woman are better than men at some things. I do not understand guys who think men are dominant. How can they?" Where do you pull the idea that I was anywhere attempting to advocate that men are literally equal to women in this round? Look specifically to the phrase, "Men are better than woman at some things, and woman are better than men at some things" obviously if I think this then they can't be literally equal. Then look to my second to last sentence, "I do not understand guys who think men are dominant." Once again this shows the context of the debate. We are not talking about literally equal here. We are speaking of woman rights and abilities. "But EVEN IF she didn't have a shifting advocacy and WASN'T abusive, EVEN IF you don't believe that: She didn't define anything in R1, and so it was up to me in my own R1 to specify what the resolution was talking about. Unlike her, I cited definitions from a specific source, and sure, there are 14 or more definitions (honestly I didn't count), but I picked the first definition on that list, so it should be most relevant. And even if it isn't, she didn't define anyways, so we have to look to my definition for the debate." >>Ummm no, no we shouldn't. I didn't bother defining because I thought it was more than clear what I was talking about. You on the other hand attempted to twist what I was saying so you could win this debate because you didn't feel like debating my advocacy. You had every chance not to take this debate. "but I picked the first definition on that list, so it should be most relevant." >>Except for the fact that it wasn't..... "And even if it isn't, she didn't define anyways, so we have to look to my definition for the debate." >>No we definitely don't. You define a word that didn't need to be defined in the context. Then I turn around and re-define it for you with two definitions from the same source. We definitely don't need to look to your definition. Onto your three responses to my abuse arguments. ""Context" - There is no context; when I look at the topic I see the words and I see a white background. As for the whole "it's obvious" thing, I've already responded to that. You didn't provide a definition in R1, so I provided one." >>Already hit both points in this above. There was a context and it more than precedes your definition. "Ground" - 1) All arguments take away ground. If I bring up evidence that shows that ethanol causes more petroleum use than just plain using gasoline, well then too freakin' bad! You can't use the argument that ethanol curbs global warming anymore. 2) It doesn't matter if I take away ground. You have an infinite amount of arguments to make, and this is even more clearly defined when we all realize that we're all on the internet. We have Google, Wikipedia, and all these other FREE sources where we can get information. Even if by my case I took away fifteen million arguments you could've made, you still have infinite arguments to make. Infinity minus big numbers still result in infinity. You'd have to prove that you have limited ground for this argument to matter at all. 3) If an argument I provided was able to make you resort to not responding at all and saying I'm "unfair", doesn't that mean I'm just winning the round because my arguments are too good for you?" >>My ground is the resolution. Thats what I have to use against you in this debate. You simply have to disprove the resolution in some way or another. Except you don't bother trying to do that at all. Instead you attempt to change the resolution. So you take all of my ground (arguing for womans rights and abilities) and take it, under your definition these arguments are now pointless. And then you replace my ground with your new interpretation which would be to prove that men are literally equal to women. Except I can't prove that can I? So guess what.... I now have no ground. You have taken it all. >> On your third point specifically. Where does that logic come from. I make a debate talking about women and men being equal within the context and you attempt to change the entire debate. Of course I'm arguing your being unfair you've attempted to steal every argument I could make. You are attempting to change the entire resolution. This would be like me arguing that cats are cooler than dogs and then you turning around and being like, "well cats is a Broadway production and it obviously isn't better than dogs." Like our current debate my example totally ignores the context and changes the definition of one of the words. ""Fairness" - She's basically saying that my argument is unfair because it takes away too much of her ground, and that debate should be fair." >>Debate should be fair. The idea of debate is not to find truth as you stated it is to decide who the better debater is. If the point of debate was to find truth then debate would be pointless as one side would always be truthful and the other not. What you speak of is a poll. Polls will find truth or public opinion. Debate is about debating and deciding who the better debater is. You then used the twisted logic that I made the resolution so I should not be complaining about losing ground but you have this backwards. I made the resolution so you should be content with the ground you have. Obviously you were not so you attempted to change the entire resolution. Once again, if you didn't want to debate this then you didn't have to. "Finally, she says "Simply making the resolution mean anything you want it to defeats the entire point of debate" This is also wrong on multiple levels. 1) What's the point of debate? To find truth. I'm sorry the resolution agrees with me. 2) Isn't she just "making it anything" she wants it to be as well? Why does this apply to me at all? I'm not the one with a shifting advocacy. 3) It isn't what I want, it's THE TRUTH." >> 1). Wrong, it is to debate. Its an exercise in using the mind and intelligence. 2). I made the debate. If you wanted to argue something else make your own resolution. @.@ I have the right to make it what I want, you agreed to what I wanted my accepting the debate. 3). Its the truth if you want to ignore the context of everything. But once again i'm calling your logic regressive. We can't simply ignore the context of the debate. Ignoring the context makes debate meaningless. Would be like debating the resolution "fish". Without a context it has no meaning. Thanks, my advocacy still stands.