All feminist should be MRAs

1) Okay, well I'm not sure what you mean by adding arguments. I'm pretty sure I just rebutted your stuff, maybe using different information. But even if I did add another argument, it's the middle of a debate. Nowehere did you specify that no arguments were allowed past the first round. You say I need to elaborate more on my arguments but I don't even know what you mean? The motto of this debate has been you accusing me of some bad practice but not giving examples.2)I think you mean subjective, as objective is the opposite of what you state. However, if you would read the Wiki's page on adding information[1] (I'll actually give the link because I'm not an animal. That's a joke) any unsourced information can be challenged and removed. While anyone can add info, that does not mean it will stay on there.3) Here we go, more accusations with no examples. By the way, we are emotional beings and our actions are often based on our emotions. That includes our audience and their votes.4) You give examples but not helpful ones. I don't even know how to reply here because I am not too sure what you mean.5) Your definition does not fit our reality. Note, the premise is not that feminists are MRAs, but that feminists should BE MRAs. Your definition is wrong because it does not fit the movements; feminism being for both genders, MRM beiing for exclusively men's issues. Women can be MRAs as well (but I highly recommend against it.)6) Are... are you even critiquing my arguments at this point? Like should I be taking notes? Will your tips I never asked for and aren't really thinking of applying to my arguments be on the test? You are putting doubt on rape victims, which is not only an important thing to discuss, but highly dangerous for issues not necessary to this debate. However, in my other debates about feminism I give some stats on rape, if anyone is interested in why this is an issue.7) Okay, maybe I am just a moron, but I'm having some confusion here. You talk about how I attack your examples and not the argument (though an argument is only as valid as it's examples if you ask me) but I'm not entirely sure of the entire argument from premise seven? But let's talk about what you say, anyway. Note the title, "All feminists should be MRAs" (which would mean they do not fit the incorrect definition of the MRM and thus do not "advocate for male rights" which is something you needed to have shown). Let's read your first argument. Hmm... You actually don't say a lot that is actually noteworthy, now that I am getting back to it. You gave some arguments with some examples, I refuted the examples and thus the arguments, and you talk a lot about feminism. However, you do not address the other party here, the MRM. In fact, here is your following closing: "The definition of a feminist encompasses the definition of MRA activism, hence, it would be a blatant hypocrisy for a feminist to not be a MRA." You say F should be M, which implies M does not need to be F. This is what I was objecting too. Also, reading this again, I noticed you didn't list the definition of the MRM being solely advocation for male rights. I sometimes agree with Republicans, but that does not mean I am one.8) Well there was a flaw in your analogy that I did not bring up, which is that a complex belief system such as Islam with it's old text that can be interpreted many ways and MRM is a relatively new movement with less numbers and even less diversity in ideas. My point was that Islam was not responsible for the 9/11 attack, but AL-Qaeda was.9) Ugh it's kind of hard to stay objective when you act so condescendingly. Okay, so I actually think I know what point I made that you are talking about (please keep a consistent format, you go from kind of numbers to paragraphs to numbers again. I'm trying to match you but you keep flip flopping on me). I stated you didn't respond well enough to my argument, which was a good 2-3 paragraphs response to your examples, and thus your argument, and you thought saying "3) and 2) These were just examples I used to show men have problems. Attack the arguments not the examples." was a good enough refutation. 10. Yeah not sure what you are addressing here. This is a debate involving feminism and thus feminism should be included, but I don't know what you are talking about from my argument.11. Here's something, screw your definitions! At first glance, the definition of communism sounds pretty good too, but there aren't a lot of real world examples of that turning out too well.See, right in the middle of an argument you switch format. I know your definition is inconsistent with the real world (something I have actually shown). By the way, your argument appears to have been, when I accepted this debate, mind you, that feminists should BECOME MRAs. These two movements are polar opposites, as one (F) advocates for equality between men and women and the other (M) advocates solely for male issues. Sorry for popping up here with a new argument, but feminism isn't just for equality between these two genders, but for ALL genders. As in, ALL[2] genders. While this is not including in the definition but if you do a tiny bit of research you will see this sort of acceptance from many feminists.Your definition is wrong.Your definition is wrong, for a different reason.You claim they have the same goal, but different means. We all want economic succes, but we disagree on how to get there.Well, this actually means you can not be justified in being for equality and a supremecist, but our actions do not always fall in line with our ideologies. Actually, I am not an MRA because I think the movement is wrong and fairly sexist, not to mention it's championing for an already priviliged sex. Yes, this debate topic is that feminists should become MRAs, and you chose the Pro side. This is, to the very least, misleading, especially as you spent the entire first round talking about the errors in feminism. I believe I have shown these ideologies are not mirrors of each other, but rather polar opposites. You could say "opposites attract" but tell that to the two political parties in America. If by addressing you mean mentioning, then yes, you addressed it. Not adaquately enough, and I poled my own holes in your argument, but let's forget about that, I guess. You are the one who is being picky on definitions, mate. If you got a big love for definitions, then apply this to your own ideology, which advocates natural solutions to human problems. Your definition is wrong, and thus I won't stick to them.See the problem? Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.thedailybeast.com...