Sexism against men

You say that male-only military conscription is not sexist, but an example of gender inequality. However, this inequality is a direct result of the choice by the government to conscript only men, i. e a conscious decision to discriminate. You claim that men are not being discriminated against based on their sexuality, however I never suggested that this was the case. The claim that women are our biological heritage and so need protecting is absurd, given that men are just as necessary for procreation as women. To say that women are more central to the economy is also ridiculous, given that far more men are in full-time work than women. You talk about "invisible barriers" to women getting jobs, but you don't say what these are. Why would women over 60 "become useless" to employers? Surely they are just as capable in non-manual jobs as younger workers? Surely being able to claim their pension 5 years early will make women less likely to progress in their careers, since they will be working for a shorter length of time? In short I have shown several examples of discrimination against men, which my opponent has not been able to justify. I therefore ask you to vote in favor of the proposition. Voter be aware that I have never slandered his argument his defention of sexism was "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of persons based on sex or gender" , he now is claim that he was arguing for the position of gender discrimination. First, I would like to get the dirt work out of the way. Your first paragraph is rhetorical; it seems to be lending on to the resolution that governments are individuals. I have not placed a opinion on that conclusion you came to, but I do have to say there is no evidence for your claim, that why you may have resorted to a subjective means of explain, or more so, a excuse to your inconsistency in your definition of sexism. You seem to do this other parts of your argument. You said that I have made faulty claims, which I have considered and will happily expand further for your lack of judgment. Specifically you said "You claim that men are not being discriminated against based on their sexuality, however I never suggested that this was the case. " In a nutshell, you did claim that men were be discriminated against, you simple have chosen to not acknowledge it for some reason, up until your last argument. Core response: If, the claim , you made about discrimination against men was projected to the world, would it be taken into consideration women have been discriminated and faced sexism to a greater scale then men. If my opponent wins this argument then this means that the entire feminist movement was "irrational" and men of the world must be understood in a rather different light"namely, as the unrational providers of society to an inherently irrational and meaningless world for women. And indeed, a history of womens was often that of nihilism and irrationalism, perhaps the media would do well to give some attention to this possibility, sinse women are sex symbols and should live there life to serve men. The world has done much in the way of breaking down the traditional wall built up, over many centuries, between reason and madness, but the fact is that some still stay because it is rational to the people with power and unimaginable to understand by some. If you don"t know by now what im talk about your stament of "male-only military conscription", you said that this exist as a direct result of the government. Ill have you know that women only make up 23% of power in politics in the country"s you listed (. http://unstats.un.org...) This men"s that the majorty of people who let male-only conscription take place is a result of men, not the government as a whole. It would be absurd to say men are self-hating and sexist, thus, we make our self-conscripted to military. The reason that male-only conscription exist is because of tradition, ergo, the tradition MAY have stemmed from our basic biology. Males are protecters/hunter/and seeder for women from an evolutionary perspective. And economically men have it better then women, as indirectly described in my other round. Also you said "The claim that women are our biological heritage and so need protecting is absurd, given that men are just as necessary for procreation as women. To say that women are more central to the economy is also ridiculous, given that far more men are in full-time work than women. Firstly, this statement is contradictory because women have the biologically physical qualities made for raising and give resources to human. Involuntary or evolutionary men have always been the providers. This may be why men are psychologically driven to be mainly attracted to a females reproductive quality"s and why women are careful to chose there subjectively best seeder so they can raise a baby with protection and a supplier of resources. Its sad that you don"t see this, but women might not need men anymore for reproduction especially since scientist have discovered how to make artificial sperm from the bone marrow (. http://www.nbcnews.com...). If this technology is proven successful then my statement will be even closer to the truth, ie women don"t need men for procreation and men can never reproduce because male sex organ aren"t made for reproduction . but this is Ok because men have always had it better, and haven"t been faced with a thick sense of sexism or as feel is more literal gender inequality. Men have dominated society, men aren"t made for reproduction, men were made to fertilize the egg and the rest of there lifes was free to explore purpose. Men invented cavitation"s that are awed upon by men future to them. Men have always had it better then women historically, we have always been on top of the gender pyramid. Discrimination in terms of gender towards men is mild, unless, it is of sexual interest like homosexuality. Men have and still have a majority populace in science, politics, ethics, law, economy, and so forth. So why is it that Pro feels it necessary to discredited the power of men and say that we are the weak in society, when men has dominated since there first steps. It is only until recently women have be granted freedom and equality, however still face sexism with ads like this and many should argue pro feel threated by it and is unprogressive of it. This is exactly why you should vote con, because men are not being discriminated against, there are some men who think traditions should be changed not ethics. also given the fact that Pro dident provide any objective evidence for his opinions. his whole argument is undeveloped and lacks the means on proven evidence, what i mean is that he hasn't given any reason to why anyone should care about his thesis. where as i have with sources and statistical data, not to motion my own subjective opinion, which was, influenced by the statistical data that disapproved the argument he made.