The wage gap between men and women does not exist in America

Point 1 - Pro ConcedesA major one and the most significant, Pro concedes the argument.The topic of the debate is "The wage gap between men and women does not exist in America". As per R1 Pro will be arguing that "The wage gap between men and women does not exist in America". In R2 he makes the resolution "The wage gap between men and women does not exist in America".In his first point he then concedes that the wage gap does exist:"This means that it's that women are paid less, but it is that they choose to work less."The gives a rational for why the wage gap between men and women exists that I disagree with (because they choose to), but he concedes it exists.In light of this I don't think there is much point continuing as I think Pro wants to argue a different topic from the one he three times stated was the topic under debate.I'd suggest he concedes the remaining rounds and remakes a new topic entitled "The Gender Wage Gap is not due to discrimination" or similar seeing as that seems to be what he is trying to argue for. I'll even be happy to take the opposing side again. However the topic he is trying to argue here is very much not the one he has listed three seperate times and which he has already conceded. I'll make a preliminary response on a few of other points pending his response.Point 2 - Statistics supported the wage gap DO account for many factorsIt is very odd that Pro claims 'many of the statistics "proving" that the wage gap exists don't account for the fact that women often work for less hours and decide to leave work for family reasons such as maternal leave'. Trying to account for other variables is a basic proecedure in scientific study. How could all these experts in their field have missed this very basic and very fundamental point?The answer is they didn't.Take http://www.aauw.org... example, which states "But even after researchers controlled for age, education, hours worked beyond full time, industry sector, marital status, and presence of children in the household, female managers still earned just 81 percent of what male managers did, leaving an unexplained 19 percent pay gap (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010)."Or the other approach, the studies where this isn't a factor due to the way they investigate the issue. In http://www.nber.org... instance, it looks at the difference blind auditions made in orchestras - when the hirers made their decisions just based on the performance without being able to see the performer. Strange how after blind auditions were instituted, women getting the job shot right up!The research into the gender wage gap which has been carried out does take into account the points he raised and still show a gender wage gap exists, albeit smaller than if you don't take them into account.Point 3 - "Other reasons" isn't the same as not due to discriminationAs https://www.infona.pl..., the points that Pro tries to explain away are themselves rooted in discrimination to a good degree. Pro for instance mentions "Notably, women with children at home account for many of the differences. Women without children often have attitudes about unemployment that are more similar to men’s, the poll shows."There is a societalwide bias in the USA that stereotypes women as the primary caregivers to children and pushes women into this roll. Despite being better than it was 50 years ago, the house husband is still a rare thing. This gender stereotyped roles are a form of gender discrimination which cause the very effects Pro talks about in his point 1.Also please note in the abstract "There is a continuing debate as to the extent to which the gap reflects merely the inevitable and reasonably fair result of differing work patterns and behaviors by women and men or the impact of employment discrimination against women. The human capital approach, in which various explanatory variables are used to shrink the perceived size of the gap, is often used to argue that much of the gap is due, not to discrimination, but to differing investments in employment by women and men." which provides further evidence towards my point 2 that the factors Pro claims are ignored are actually looked into regularly.Point 4 - Pro's Complete Lack of EvidenceIn his first point Pro claims the claim that studies into the wage gap do not account for women having different job preferences. Although he provides evidence that women have different job preferences (which hardly needs evidencing), he provides nothing to show that studies into the gender wage gap do not take this into account which is the actual pertinent part of his point that needs backing up. Likewise in point two he claims that wage inequality is illegal in the USA which he backs up. However he then concedes this is irrelevent and what matters is that the authorities and the government would know about "illegal wages". He provides no evidence for how the government and authorities know about all illegal wages.Pro hasn't actually backed up the relevant parts of his argument with any logic or evidence. His claims must therefore be considered empty until he backs them up.Point 5 - The government and authorities obviously do not automatically know about "illegal wages" that are given outPro claims "if illegal wages were given out authorities and the government would know about it."Therefore by his argument there should bee no illigal immigrants working in the USA and no embezzlement that isn't caught.I doubt anyone buys into this, so his argument can be disregarded.