Feminism: Positive or Negative

Thank you for submitting your Round 3 arguments.RebuttalsCON's objection to my Maxim is hardly an objection at all. Simply finding something worth ignoring does not mean it should be ignored, especially considering no official alternative has been offered. That is to say, that CON has not provided us with a relevant maxim by which to decide who's points are stronger. Simply because men and women are currently equal in most places does not then mean the Maxim is worth ignoring. Perhaps there is some other Maxim that could have been offered. However, my definitions stand. As such, when casting your vote, do pay attention to how the arguments are made as relates to the Maxim provided.CON then begins addressing my point regarding his conflation of a group of people with the ideology/philosophy that they adhere to. The reasoning CON offers for believing that feminism is negative is fallacious. This is similar to arguing that since there have been bad Christians (for example, those of the Spanish Inquisition or the Westboro Baptist church) that therefore Christianity is negative, that is, has a negative effect on society due to failure to achieve a certain maxim. Simply because there are some people who are bad within a group does not then mean the entire group is bad. While I will not assert that feminism is detached from its adherents, it seems, to me, quite absurd to look at only one specific subset of a group to render a decision. "Feminism" is the "advocacy of women's rights on the ground of equality of the sexes". That means that we must look at those circumstances wherein this advocacy takes place.CON's points in regards to the supposed Wage Gap are of very little strength. There was a time when it was determined that an Act must be passed for the achievement of the Maxim. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA-63) was meant to ensure that no one was paid unfairly based on race or gender [1]. The EPA-63 is still in effect. Whether or not the Act was necessary (as it can be argued it wasn't), the maxim is still being acheived. All people are to be paid the same amount if they are of the same labor value. That is to say, that if a man and woman have the same level of experience, education, and dedication, their income should be equal, provided they are under the same employee for the same length of time. CON, once again, attempts to ease the burden of proof that must be satisfied. The resolution states "Feminism: positive or negative" not "Radical Feminism: positive or negative". This is, again, related to the Fallacy of Composition. Even if radical feminism is negative, this is one sect of feminism. This is an invalid argument. It can be summarized as follows:Radical feminism is a part of feminism as a whole.Radical feminism is bad (assumption).Therefore, Feminism as a whole is bad.Even if it were summarized as a Modus Ponens:If radical feminism is bad, then feminism as a whole is bad.Radical feminism is bad (assumption).Therefore, feminism as a whole is bad.The conclusion could still be false, given new information, thus making the argument unsound, and removing the warrant it would provide. For example, the fact that "feminism" is the name given to the actions that lead to women being able to vote, getting paid as they should, being able to sue and be sued, being able to own property, and having their own legal identities. These facts demand a reconsideration of reasons to believe feminism is negative. CON did not address any of these points. They still stand.ConclusionAs stated earlier, my definitions stand unchallenged. The Maxim also stands unchallenged. As such, they are the official guidelines for voting on this debate.My argument goes as follows:1. X is positive if and only if X benefits society such that if X were not in effect/existence/practice, there would be some maxim that is not achieved. (definition offered in R1)2. The Maxim is "All people, regardless of gender, race, age, sexuality, should be held equal under law".3. If feminism were not practiced, women would not be legally equal to men (supported by arguments from EPA-63 and Coverture and definition).4. From 4, without feminism, the Maxim cannot be attained.C. From 1 and 5, feminism is positive.While I agree with some of CON's commentary on the modern iteration of feminism, this does not count as an affirmation of the CON resolution. Feminists are not feminism, articles are not advocacy, and radical feminism is not the entirety of the feminist movement. There are somethings that have been done in the feminist movement that, were they mentioned, would affirm the CON resolution. However, these things were not mentioned.I have provided sufficient warrant for my position. The summary above is what was intended to be taken away from my arguments. I look for to the votes and any feedback that is offered.Thank you for an exciting debate and good luck in the future.[1] http://www.eeoc.gov...;