Instigator / Con
34
1596
rating
9
debates
88.89%
won
Topic
#1802
Poverty Exists Only for Men
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 5 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...
Discipulus_Didicit
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
14
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
Description
This debate title is a copy from a statement which Frankie has made in the fourms. This debate is a challenge to Frankie to back up this claim, a challenge which he will very likely decline due to the fact that he knows not-so-deep-down that the statement he has made is a false one.
Round 1
Since I didn't lay out any definitions in the description due to genuinely believing that Frankie would decline the challenge I will do so now. Frankie is free to dispute any of the following definitions in his round one, if he does so it is up to the voters to decide what definitions to accept and also up to the voters to decide what impact if any that gas on the debate outcome. Obviously if these definitions are not disputed in Frankie's round one then it is fair to assume that he accepts them.
Please note that though Frankie has the right to dispute definitions (because he is only seeing these definitions after accepting the debate) he does not have the right to change the wording of the resolution in any way (because he had the opportunity to review the resolution before accepting and also because the resolution is a direct non-paraphrased quote from Frankie himself).
Poverty - The state of living with an income which is less than the poverty line.
Poverty Line - the estimated minimum level of income needed to secure the bare necessities of life. This varies from place to place depending on costs of living.
Exists - To ascribe a certain quality to (in this case, the quality of poverty).
Only - Exclusively, with exceptions being non-existent or rare.
Rare - Existing in fewer than 30% of cases.
Men - Adult male humans.
Assuming the voters accept these definitions the proposition would seem to be negated if Frankie is unable to demonstrate that out of all people in poverty less than 30% are not men. I will thus turn the argument to him in order to afford him the opportunity to perform said demonstration or to dispute the definitions above.
women control 80% of spending
What is the gender breakdown of those receiving welfare? Women are more likely to seek help through welfare programs. Close to 25% of those aged 16 to 64 were receiving benefits as of 2011. Among men in the same age range, slightly more than 19% received some type of welfare.-https://www.creditdonkey.com/welfare-statistics.html
Women get all the welfare and then spend it away, this was my main argument, not that poverty only exists for men but that a society never lets a women fail
Women make up 38.5% of all income but control 75% of domestic spending, women on average spend 90%MORE MONEY THAN THEY EARN. -If a women IS in poverty, she used welfare benefits to get it.
If women spend more money than earn it, obviously society doesn't want them to fail and will grant them lower crime sentences and more benefits, this is why true poverty exists for men, because they work longer but dont get a pussy pass
Round 2
Introduction
Frankie has been afforded the opportunity to dispute the above definitions and has chosen not to do so. I will now construct my argument against the resolution around these definitions. After this I will address Frankie's points in round one.
Argument Against the Resolution
As I mentioned in round one the resolution is negated if more than 30% of the population of people living in poverty are not men. This is due to my very lenient definitions of the words 'only' and 'rare'. A stricter interpretation of the resolution would technically make my job a bit easier but the claim is outlandish enough that I think my job is easy enough as it is.
According to Statistica.com (the first source I could find that uses the same definition of poverty as that which Frankie has agreed to) women make up well over 50% of those living in poverty:
The only potential flaw with this source is that it only looks at U.S. poverty rather than global poverty, but this flaw only becomes fatal if Frankie is able to find a reliable source about global poverty which shows that shows women making up less than 30% of those in poverty globally.
Response to Frankie's Round One
In Frankie's round one argument he presents us with a classic case of what is called "fractal wrongness". This is a phenomenon which occurs when a multi-leveled argument is made which happens to be wrong on every level it is made. Those wishing to read more about this phenomenon may do so in the following link, though it has no relevance to this debate.
In order to demonstrate this point and provide a minor case study in fractal wrongness I shall begin by explaining why the lower levels of Frankie's arguments are incorrect then proceed to "zoom out" level by level and demonstrate that even if we assume the silly premises Frankie presents are valid his conclusion still does not follow. This will finish with a demonstration that even if his conclusion did follow it would not support the resolution of the debate, thus rendering Frankie's entire argument little more than an irrelevant tangent.
We begin with Frankie's opening statement that "women control 80% of spending". Frankie fails to even attempt to cite a source for this claim of his. He in fact later goes on to demonstrate that according to his own source women make up only about 56% of the population of people on welfare. This is directly stated within the quote box that Frankie cites. I am not even going to bother fact checking this statistics he cited because it contradicts his claim anyway. Lastly I would ask the audience to consider the following question: Who receives welfare in the first place? The answer is, of course, poor people. While not all poor people live in poverty (and those that do not are irrelevant to the debate resolution) all people in poverty are poor. There is therefore a correlation between the two. Therefore if welfare money is meant to go to poor people and slightly more welfare money is going to women then what does that say about the proportion of women that are poor, and therefore the proportion of women living in poverty? Hmmm.
Despite the obvious weaknesses of everything Frankie has said so far however I would like to highlight the fact that nothing he has said is actually relevant to the debate resolution. Frankie has agreed that the definition of poverty is "living with an income below the poverty line". Even if women control 75 to 80 percent of spending (a claim which Frankie has not even tried to provide evidence of) was true this still does not lead to the conclusion that all women have incomes above the poverty line, which is the claim made in the resolution.
To summarize my response to Frankie's argument:
- Welfare spending does not make up all spending so even if we assume that women controlled 80% of welfare spending (they don't) the claim that they control 80% of all spending is still unjustified.
- Women control only about 56% of welfare spending, at least according to Frankie.
- Even if we assumed that the claim that women control 80% of all spending is true (it isn't) the claim that this means women don't live in poverty is unjustified.
- Frankie is literally arguing against the resolution with some of his claims anyway.
Conclusion
The voters are to remember going forward that Frankie was afforded the opportunity to dispute any definitions he may have had a problem with. For example if he believed that poverty meant "Needing welfare but not receiving welfare" he could have said as much (it would than be for the voters to decide whether to accept this definition over my own proposal). As he has chosen not to do so it is fair to assume that he accepts the definitions I have proposed. Therefore if my positive argument to negate the resolution is not countered using an argument which accepts these definitions then the resolution is negated regardless of any additional tangents by Frankie. If the resolution is logically negated the audience should vote con.
Dude it was satire, my main point is that society tries it damm hardest to let women not fail
But I will happily take this L
Round 3
I accept Frankie's admission that he was wrong and his subsequent forfeit.
I was not wrong, it was satire
Round 4
I accept Frankie's admission that he was wrong and his subsequent forfeit.
It was SATIRE, its want even my main point if you look back at the post
Feminist
i think its just if all opponetns finished the debate
how do you choose quality debates and how come this is one?
Where are the stats for that? North Korea is closed for all resaerch
I don't know about all the policies, but in North Korea, poverty exists on 99% of the population, female or not.
Spam be gone
I accept your admission that you were wrong and acknowledge your resulting backpedal away from your previous bold claim.
you are not interested in the truth at alll
i dont care about this debate
"because I exageretd it, disc_dic is not interested in exaggerations"
Pointing out that your opponent is only interested in the truth is usually not considered an insult.
Furthermore the definitions we agreed to allowed more than enough room for exaggeration as fauxlaw has already pointed out. The fact that women experience more poverty than men means that you were wrong, it doesn't mean I cheated.
You were the one who iniated it, talk about pointless debating
"It appears that Pro is arguing that poverty is worse for men because society prioritizes the fiscal health of women over men. This point is largely irrelevant to the resolution, so ultimately Pro fails to offer an ounce of evidence which supports the notion that "Poverty Exists Only for Men."
because I exageretd it, disc_dic is not interested in exaggerations
I accept your admission that you were wrong and the resulting unwillingness to debate.
LOL, I am not accepting any more debates, it is pointless
Dispostion-the power to deal with something as one pleases.
Synonym-at the disposal of
Men are disposible for society and must be odebient
Male obedience to the system
"everyone I don't like is an incel"
Whiteknight
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/011/869/internet_white_knight_colored_4350.jpg
incel
What does the word disposition mean then, kiddo?
That is wrong,
"You want male disposition"
I can only assume you don't know what the word disposition means since that is a nonsense sentence that has no meaning.
Nah Im good, you are of course a feminist, you want male disposition, most people are feminists
I am a feminist? Laughable. Want to debate that topic too Frankie?
The resolution would be "Discipulus_Didicit is a feminist". Present a reasonable definition of the word feminist and I will set the debate up right now.
feminist
Ah, yes. I missed your misdirection. Sue me. I hesitated to vote on this debate, but will consider more and engage a vote.
I would agree that the definition of "rare" which I proposed is way more lenient than would be fair. These definitions definitely favored my opponent. As I said in round 2:
"This is due to my very lenient definitions of the words 'only' and 'rare'. A stricter interpretation of the resolution would technically make my job a bit easier but the claim is outlandish enough that I think my job is easy enough as it is."
In theory the higher the number of exceptions allowed the easier this debate is for pro so I intentionally gave the definition a ridiculous value specifically with the intent to show just how ridiculous pro's claim is.
The parameters [definitions] offered for this debate, specifically with regard to "rare" is far too excessive at 30% to ave any meaning relative to the overall premise that only men are affected by poverty. For example, in an entirely different matter of an issue affecting a portion of the population, "rare" is defined as far less than 30%. According to NIH https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/pages/31/faqs-about-rare-diseases - a rare disease in the United States is one affecting 200,000 people, or less, or 0.06% of the population. Not that disease and poverty are necessarily related, but that the condition of "rare" is considered so much less. Another factor: what is the most rare eye color? According to the World Atlas, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/only-two-percent-of-the-worlds-population-have-this-trait/ar-BBT3LTR
only 2% of the world's population has green eyes. That's rare. 30% is not. Therefore, on its face, I consider this debate as useless by definition.
I accept Frankie's admission that he was wrong and his subsequent forfeit.
Really? You are actually okay with all the definitions I laid out?
I assume you meant pro, in which case I may agree lol.
This is a fine example of a debate which needs more grading categories. Con deserves some points for the balls of accepting the challenge.