There's nothing wrong with being a bit sexist sometimes.

------------------ Re Definitions ------------------ My opponent dropped therefore conceded to my definitions of sexist. I believe this shall negatively effect his case. ----------------- Re Anecdote ----------------- Ladies and gentleman, the only problem my opponent has with my anecdote is that it is supposedly unrealistic. Thus, if I am able to demonstrate as to how my anecdote can be considered realistic, this point will no doubt be considered legitimate for my case, and you will have no choice but to vote in favor of it. Essentially, my opponent is claiming that the anecdote doesn't hold water because Joe's wife should know when he is joking. Well, who said Joe's wife didn't know that he was attempting some humor? Often times, we understand that someone is joking and yet we are still offended. For instance, take the racist Mexican/afro American joke I submitted earlier. If someone were to walk up and tell a Mexican American and/or an African American and tell the joke only to say that they were kidding afterwards, do you think the African American or Mexican American would be obligated to just stand by and laugh with the individual who just told such a racist joke, only to reveal that he was joking at the end? Of course not. The fact that humor was being attempted wasn't the problem; the KIND OF humor used would be the problem. As for being offended by Joe's sense of humor, people often marry people whom they shouldn't. There is a reason the divorce rate in America is so high and that is mostly because people don't take the time to consider how well their personalities mesh with their partner's. Furthermore, who is to say that Joe's wife had just tried to overlook his humor for a long time, only eventually not being able to take it anymore? Given the above points, my anecdote is no doubt realistic, thus it is legitimate for my case. ------------------ Re Priorities ------------------ Next, my opponent attempts to advocate that men and women differ when it comes to priorities. Ladies and gentleman, his reasoning behind this statement is PURELY based on gender stereotypes. Not all women prefer to stay in the kitchen all day, not all women are neat freaks, not all women have an obsession with shopping, not all women prefer vanity mirror, not all women prefer stain resistant seats, not all women prefer curtain air bags, not all women obsess over romantic plots in films, etc; basically, not all women fall into the laundry list of stereotypes which my opponent comes up with. Next, I don't just hint to lesbians when I bring up masculine women. To be a lesbian, a female individual has to be sexually attracted to solely women, but just because her personality possesses masculine traits, it does not automatically fit her to possessing the role of a lesbian. In fact, there are indeed many men who serve the position of "house wife" whereas their wife is the "MAN" bringing him the moolah within today's society. Again, these traits are not what determine sexuality. Rather, they are just typically associated. ------------------------- Re Racist Justification ------------------------- My opponent's only defense against my "racist justification" contention is that making jokes about blacks/Mexicans is different as they are usually under-privileged in society, yet this claim is clearly fallacious. Throughout most of the world, women are vastly underprivileged. Whether it be in the middle east where women are essentially considered second class citizens (not to mention that they are often allowed to be charged with a death penalty if they are merely SUSPECTED of cheating on their husbands) or India where EDUCATION OF WOMEN IS VASTLY DISCOURAGED it is a serious issue ( it is as serious as the treatment of blacks and Mexicans). Basically, my opponent's response simply doesn't hold water. Not only that, but to take it one step further, his argument is clearly resorting to the fallacy of ad misericordiam (appeal to pity). Syllogism format: 1) Blacks and Mexicans are under-privileged in society. 2) It's only not okay to make jokes about people who are under privileged. 3) Therefore, it is not okay to make jokes about blacks and Mexicans. In short, his just doesn't fly. --------------------------------------------- Re Privileges accorded solely to women ---------------------------------------------- As for these privileges, all of them are indeed sexist. Sexism does exist and is practiced (no question about that, just as racism exist and is practiced as well) If my opponent is suggesting that since these privileges are allowed, sexism should be A-Okay, then I'm afraid I'll have to inform him that this line of reason is usage of none other than the appeal to tradition fallacy. Given that this argument is being justified with this fallacy, one could very well use my opponent's logic to suggest something along the lines of "Sure I believe in God. People have believed in God for thousands of years so it seems clear that God must exist. After all, why else would the belief last so long?" or "Of course this mode of government is the best. We have had this government for over 200 years and no one has talked about changing it in all that time. So, it has got to be good. " (1) ----------------------------------- Re Women have it cushy cushy ----------------------------------- Uh, no. As I pointed out above, many women suffer due to sexism. All of which is conveniently ignored by my opponent's case. -------------------------- Reason to Vote CON -------------------------- I believe that my opponent and I have exhausted all avenues of the subject at hand. I maintain my position that "There is something wrong with being a bit sexist sometimes" is correct and that my opponent has failed to demonstrate how his position overcomes the following: #1. My definitions were conceded to when my opponent dropped them. Thus, my opponent agreed that we ARE talking about discrimination, prejudice, stereotyping, and such (contrary to what he said in his opening statement). One must note that he insinuated the aforementioned terms were bad (hence why he said we weren't talking about them in his opening statement). #2. My anecdote was only charged as being fallacious due to lack of realism, but as I was easily able to demonstrate in this round, it was realistic. Thus, my conclusion regarding the anecdote would have to be accepted. #3. My opponent's priority argument was based on nothing more than stereotypes (thus, no real substance to it). #4. My opponents rebuttal to my "racist justification" consisted of an obvious appeal to pity, which as I've pointed out, is absurd and that women do in fact suffer from the same degree of underpriviledgeness (if not, then worse) that blacks and Mexican do. #5. His "privileges" argument basically consisted of a fallacious appeal to tradition. All in all, sexism (regardless of what degree it is presented in) is indeed harmful. As my opponent conceded to, to any degree, it is still considered discrimination, prejudice and stereotyping. Given that this is the case, his position can easily be used to fuel so-called "funny" racism (especially the manner which I had cited earlier). Thus, for great justice, you must vote CON. Thank you. ----------- Sources ----------- #1. http://www.nizkor.org... With this in mind I urge you to vote Pro for a more light-hearted, less uptight society.