The Feminist movement screwed women

The opponent's speech, while eloquent, was almost entirely speculative. It's more the kind of rhetoric you'd expect a seasoned politician to deliver, and less the type of speech geared toward evidence based discourse.To start, the instigator's argument is nearly entirely speculative, lacking substantiation in either the form of evidence or logic. What we'll do here is look at some key passages from the opponent's argument, then categorize the evidence he did present, followed by a look at what the Feminist Movement has done for women, ending with a "net benefit" analysis.Key PassagesThe point of this section is to highlight the type of rhetoric which is entirely speculative and lacking in evidence. These types of statements litter the opponent's argument, and being aware of them helps us to understand why the opponent has failed to uphold his burden of proof."[Women] gave up their feminine side so they could attain what they saw as masculine goals: the corner office, the big promotion, 'freedom'..."You'll first note that the opponent has presented no evidence of this. What defines a "feminine side" and how was this lost? What analysis quantifies femininity and is capable of determining whether a loss occurred?Additionally, anyone familiar with the feminist movement understand that women did not want to achieve "masculine goals", but instead argued that "the corner office" and "freedom" where not reserved for men -- that they were human goals that either sex should be equally capable of accomplishing. "Feminists started using the word 'girly' as if it were a bad thing."There was no evidence presented to support this. "Women mistakenly coveted what men had, rather than holding onto [their] uniquely feminine power."What does this statement even mean? What is a "uniquely feminine power", beyond the ability to conceive a child? More importantly, how could a subjective statement like this every be quantified in such a way that it could be analyzed? It can't be -- which is why this statement and nearly every other statement made by the opponent holds no weight in this debate. It's entirely speculative with no grounding in evidence or logic."Most females don't like it when men don't return their calls for a second date."Why does this line of reasoning matter? Does anyone like it when they don't get a returned call for a second date? Additionally, the opponent wants to paint all women according to a stereotype -- his own notion of what a women is and how she thinks."Now a hookup culture fueled by feminisists that pressures women to forgo monogamy for one night stands...."No evidence was provided to support this claim. How is "hookup culture" related to feminism? "Emasculation of men has killed romance and courtship almost completely."Again, no evidence. No evidence that men are being emasculated, no evidence that feminism is the cause and no evidence that emasculation damages romance or ability to court. Just a baseless claim.The Evidence presented by the opponent and analysis of each specific argument.The Power TradeoffThe opponent's basic argument here is that women have "given up" a part of themselves in the name of feminism. This thing being given up is "uniquely feminine power". It is not defined what that is, it was not proven that power was lost, and it was not proven why that would be bad in the first place. This entire argument is purely speculative rhetoric and does not stand up to analysis, since there isn't even an evidenced based claim to analyze.Women Have Become ActressesThe argument here is that the feminist movement forces women to act unauthentically. And example of this was given, that "women pretending like they don't [care about what guys think]".No evidence was provided to support this claim. The opponent is essentially saying, "Look, this is how all women feel", when he could not possibly know how women feel and act. His claim would have some legitimacy if it was backed up with evidence, but it simply wasn't.This entire argument (and the other arguments he presented) are simply opinions. They have no weight here, as facts rule the day in a debate. The opponent explaining what he personally believes that women think doesn't even come close to meeting the burden of proof.Feminism Kills CourtshipSpeculative and unsupported. The only piece of evidence associated with this argument is a Fox News opinion column. This writer, Suzanne Venker, isn't an expert in the field -- she's a reporter who has personal feelings on this issue. Her argument is like the opponent's argument in that it's presented as an opinion, rather than an evidenced based appeal to reason. We get one statistic -- that women now value marriage more highly than in 1997, and that men value marriage less so. This statistics doesn't say, or even imply, why this opinion on marriage has changed. The opponent wishes to associate it with feminism, but the association is baseless without corroborating evidence. This argument is again just the opponent saying, "I know how all men and women feel. This is how they feel and this is all due to feminism."-----------------------------------------------The opponent also presents a few more pieces of evidence, the purpose of which seems to be to add false legitimacy to the opponent's case. These are:1. Women graduate with less self esteem than when they entered.2. 26% of American women are on antidepressants/anxiolytics.3. Some poll happened and people couldn't explain what "happiness" meant.First, none of these were sourced. Claiming that the New York Times said something has no real weight, unless that actual thing is linked to. You can't analyze sources that were not given.If we assume (1) is true, it doesn't imply that the feminist movement is to blame. We don't know if this "self esteem issue" has always existed, if it is recent, etc.(2) also doesn't imply that feminism is to blame. Furthermore, it's misleading. Americans, as a people, are overly medicated. Some 70% of people on antidepressants aren't even depressed. [1] It's not surprising that a large percentage of women are on these medications, since a large percentage of everybody are on these pills.(3) doesn't imply feminism is to blame and it's not even a proper scientific measurement. Asking someone to define a word does not indicate whether they are that word or whether feminism is the cause of their apparent inability to define "happiness".In short, none of this evidence points the blame toward feminism. -------------------------------------Feminism has helped women tremendouslyThe efforts of the feminist movement have accomplished the following things:(a) The Equal Pay Act of 1963, barring intersex pay discrimination. [2](b) The Civil Rights Act of 1964, barring discrimination based upon sex, amongs other things. [3](c) Education Ammendments of 1972, barrings sexual discrimination in education. [20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688](d) Women get the right to vote. [4](e) Planned Parenthood is formed in '42. [4]This are just a few examples of what the feminist movement has accomplished for women, and just in the US. Across the world, women are now gaining the right to vote, the right to drive, and the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of sex. Without the feminist movement, it is unlikely that women every would have accomplished these rights. I'll save my net benefits analysis for next round, since I'm nearly out of space.ConclusionThe opponent's case is a baseless opinion, not backed by facts. As such, he has failed to uphold his burden of proof. What's more, I demonstrated that the feminist movement has been a great boon to women. I look forward to the opponent's presentation of evidence that proves the feminist movement has been significantly damaging to women. Sources:1 -http://goo.gl...2 - https://goo.gl...3 - http://goo.gl...4 - http://goo.gl...