The United States of America Should Elect a Female President

the word "should" is key to this debateMy opponent rejects my definition - the Oxford Dictionary's definition - of "should" because "non of them fit the context".This is not an explanation that makes any sense at all.My opponent said she is confused why I keep mentioning Keke2002's arguments. Because we are recreating that debate here. My opponent stated clearly in round one: "The debate is the same as before". Keke2002 did not define "should" because she worded the resolution differently. My opponent has chosen to put "should" in the resolution here. By defining "should" as "expressing obligation or duty" she is moving the debate away from its original intention. We need to look back at Keke2002's arguments to decide on the right meaning.As a courtesy to readers, I will put Keke2002's entire argument here:Resolution: Women for president"Woman have a right to be president. We, the woman of America, need someone to represent us. I'm not saying we are better than men, but it's unfair to judge all women by how one might act. Would you for instance, try a bad strawberry than never eat strawberries again? Give women a chance." [1]My opponent has already conceded most of this argument. She agrees that women have the right to be president, and that they should have the chance to be elected. She has spent a lot of space agreeing that women are not better than men but equal.Perhaps the only part that she is arguing with is this:"We, the wom[en] of America, need someone to represent us."Of course, my opponent would argue that "someone" could be a man or a woman, while Keke2002 almost certainly meant that "someone" should be a woman.Throughout this argument, there is NO sense of "obligation or duty". Definitely a sense of preference, though. So "should", in this context, indicates a "desirable or expected state" rather than a sense of duty or obligation."should" refers to present and futureThe other aspect to the modal "should" is that it represents the present as well as the undefined future. Again, from Keke2002's argument, there's no reason to suppose she was talking about the present or about a single case of presidency. Rather, the resolution means the USA should elect a female president at some point in the future.This does not, as my opponent suggests, mean that saying "women for president" is oppressive to men. There are enough presidencies in the future for both men and women.So. To be absolutely clear. We are arguing:Is it desirable or expected that the USA elect a female president at some point in the future?the process of electing a presidentWhen a democratic process, that is supposedly open to all, churns out a male president time after time, you can draw one of three conclusions:A. The majority of people generally prefer a male presidentB. The process is somehow biased in favor of menC. There aren't any adequate female candidates.My opponent has already agreed to dismiss reason C. If the reason is B, a biased process, then I think we can also agree that it should be fixed to be unbiased. And if it were only the process that had stopped women being president, then we would soon start to see some women become president and this would be desirable as it represents the true choice of the voters.But my opponent is implying that the reason for all the male presidents is A. That people genuinely prefer a male president. That even though the majority of voters are women, they feel that a man best represents their interests. And that, if this is the case, it is wrong to say that a woman should be president.However, this completely contradicts her other argument that men and women are equally capable of being president. If, over time, there are equal numbers of capable male and female candidates and yet the voters keep on picking the male candidate even though the men are not in any way better overall, what can be happening except sex discrimination?Whether it be in education, culture, organisations or wherever, and whatever the qualities of this discrimination, surely it cannot be seen as desirable? There should not be unfair discrimination of this kind. Therefore, in this case of vote preference, too, the resolution stands.My opponent's argument about logical fallacyMy opponent claimed that my argument was fallacious and she summarized it as follows."If women should be president at some point, it would mean we have free and open elections which would allow them to become president.We have free and open elections which would allow a female to become president.Therefore, there should be a woman as a president."This is hilarious. Look at her first sentence: If P then Q. She is claiming that free and open elections are a consequence of having a woman president! If that's true, then the USA should definitely elect a woman president, because free and open elections are really important.1.http://www.debate.org...