A woman’s place is in the home

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms, without distinction of anykind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, nodistinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional orinternational status of the country or territory to which a person belongs."

" A 2005 analysis of 46 meta-analyses that were conducted during the last two decades of the 20th century underscores that men and women are basically alike in terms of personality, cognitive ability and leadership. Psychologist Janet Shibley Hyde, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison, discovered that males and females from childhood to adulthood are more alike than different on most psychological variables....For example, after participants in one experiment were told that they would not be identified as male or female, nor did they wear any identification, none conformed to stereotypes about their sex when given the chance to be aggressive. In fact, they did the opposite of what would be expected - women were more aggressive and men were more passive."

"The naturalistic fallacy is an informal logical fallacy which argues that if something is ‘natural’ it must be good." [E]

"Ok so it is the evolutionary norm for a woman to stay home  men want to spread our dna as much as possible so if a mam has sex with a woman and she dies he has failed so he would protect and provide for her and the child to keep them safe the women would notice this and take care of him in order to help him do his best at protecting and providing for her and her kid "

• Frist off you have failed to define what freedom is freedom in the classical christain definition is the ability to do what you know to be right 
  
• next yay my first argument was kinda flawed but you still have not debunked it all you really did was put words in my mouth I never said women should obey men that’s silly 
  
• next all your arguments seem to argue about obligations by law to society  but as one would note my appointment seems to have forgotten about  obligations because of decency like don’t be a jerk that’s not a law but you can’t be a jerk ok that’s just fact 
  
• next you seem to forget that women are more naturally more attentive to their children check out this article from forbes 2012 84% of working women told forbes.com that being a stay at home mom is a financial luxury that they aspire to for source https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/09/12/is-opting-out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/?sh=415b2d70623a
  
• Any way its not really about the mom it’s about what’s right and what is right for any parent well anyone of character would sat the well being of the children based on what my appointment has argued I am inclined to believe that he cares more about the mom than the child this sudy from norway show children of stay at home parents in general have a slightly higher grade point average or GPA then kid of working women https://www.ssb.no/forskning/discussion-papers/_attachment/113165?_ts=13ea1e1e480
  

• and this study from the United Kingdom shows kids of stay at home moms are less likely to be obese https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329334090_The_impact_of_maternal_employment_on_children's_weight_Evidence_from_the_UK
  

• also trans women are not women but for the sake of argument let’s bring them in as well ad gay spouses because it works with my broader point which is the children come first 

"Frist off you have failed to define what freedom is(.) freedom in the classical christain definition is the ability to do what you know to be right"

"next yay my first argument was kinda flawed but you still have not debunked it all you really did was put words in my mouth I never said women should obey men that’s silly"

next all your arguments seem to argue about obligations by law to society  but as one would note my appointment seems to have forgotten about  obligations because of decency like don’t be a jerk that’s not a law but you can’t be a jerk ok that’s just fact 

next you seem to forget that women are more naturally more attentive to their children check out this article from forbes 2012 84% of working women told forbes.com that being a stay at home mom is a financial luxury that they aspire to for source

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Given the choice between working or staying home to take care of the house and family, a record-high 66% of U.S. adults would prefer to work. While women's preference to work outside the home (56%) continues to lag behind men's (75%), it is at its highest point in roughly three decades."

"Anyway(,) its not really about the mom(.) It’s about what’s right(,) and what is right for any parent(?) Well(,) anyone of character would say the wellbeing of the child(.) Based on what my opponent has argued(,) I am inclined to believe that he cares more about the mom than the child(.) This sudy from norway show children of stay-at-home parents in general have a slightly higher grade point average or GPA then kids of working women [LINK]

"It is unclear whether an increase in mother’s labor force participation should lead to positive ornegative long-run effects on children. The direction of the effect likely depends on the substitutabilityof parental care (Becker 1981)"

"In Norway, the focus of our study,"

"Yet, some children’s outcomes may improve if workingparents rely on high quality day care programs and after school care (e.g. Blau and Currie 2006).Moreover, to the extent that mother’s employment increases family income, the increased financialresources could have a positive effect on child development"

"and this study from the United Kingdom shows kids of stay at home moms are less likely to be obese https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329334090_The_impact_of_maternal_employment_on_children's_weight_Evidence_from_the_UK"

"employment on children’s weight in the UK, for a large contemporaneous cohort that has grown up in the midst of the childhood ‘obesity epidemic’. Second, it is one of the first papers on this topic to distinguish between mothers who are single and partnered – a key distinction, with just under one quarter of our sample of children raised in a one-parent family. Third, it provides evidence on the mechanisms underlying the effects, adding to the limited body of evidence on this topic.

"Mothers in employment are likely to be different from those not in employment. Such differences, rather than employment, could be influencing child outcomes."

"The study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, concluded that for every one percentage point increase in county-level unemployment between 2008 and 2012, the school children had a 4% increased risk of becoming overweight"

• Contention I - The social contract - Women have no obligation societally to "home"
  
• Contention II - Liberty - Women have the right to do as they please, as long as it doesn't counteract the law, therefore they do not have to stay "at home"
  
• Contention III - THE COMPONENT OF NURTURING. - notes that women are not inherently more nurturing than men
  

• Rebuttal to Pro - the Naturalistic Fallacy- what is natural isn't necessarily right: Pro concedes this
  
• The interpreted resolution - aside from a term not in this resolution - Pro makes no mention of the resolution, thereby agreeing to it in this debate
  

see what my opponent has done is first he says I have no source for  the definition of freedom I gave I said it was the Christian definition source the church it is not necessary for me  to include a source as with anything Christian it can be traced back to the church and bible you don't need a source 

 next my opponent quotes a piece from the study that comes from explaining why they did the study you can tell because the quote is from an earlier study in 1981 the program used to do the study cash for care was not enacted intel 1998 and was shut down in 2007 for reasons mentioned in the study 

further more he continues to put words in my mouth by suggesting I believe women should not have constitutional rights but I never said that and I would hope he stops attacking that straw man and focus on my actual argument

but my opponent has proven to me that he has no regard for the children's well being  by insisting the parents are just as or more important then the kids he fails to realize that parents have a responsibility to create a good life for their kids regardless of rather they want to or not its part of the deal he also fails to recognize that the mother of the child would logically be the best care giver to her child ok it is not sexism to be a logical person and say the mother of some-one is the best care giver to them its actually common sense or at least it used to be and who cares if the study was done in Norway what difference does that make?   

• Mother prefer out-of-home work
  
• The article regarding children's grades dropping whenever women work does not factor in equity of employment to children's grades dropping, something which I have demonstrated to be important in a child's grades
  
• Pro has failed to address almost the entirety of Rebuttal I from last round
  

1. no you did not prove that women have constitutional rights because no-one was arguing that they don't this is exactly what I mean by you attacking   strawman   instead of actually attacking my argument the constitution is a legal document I never said women should be forced by law to stay home so the constitution does not apply here 
   
2. source the catechism of the Catholic  church  https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/e3806e/pdf/#:~:text=1731%20Freedom%20is%20the%20power,one%20shapes%20one's%20own%20life.&text=This%20freedom%20characterizes%20properly%20human,or%20blame%2C%20merit%20or%20reproach.   this is the best definition of freedom simply put because the more good you do the less bad clouds your judgment the typical example given is an alcoholic who can not stop drinking he is not free because he can not choose the right option he just keeps drinking  and eventually drinks himself to death but by your secular definition he is only free if he gets to drink as much as he wants 
   
3. but this hole rights argument from you is flayed to begin with because this is not and was not a legal debate its a social debate so its not really about rights its just about how humans interact with each other it has nothing to do with law it has nothing to do with rights you would not expect to be permitted to walk around in your underwear in public because freedom  now would you
   
4.  what con fails to realize is when you become a parent you have no right to deny your child what they need to grow into good well rounded adults its not about the parents they knew what they where getting into when the got into bed together  its about getting your child the Education the health care and the wisdom to be a kind hard working generous individual a kid is not a pet you don't get a kid for your own enjoyment it is about creating human life and growing that person into a    well rounded adult but I am inclined to believe that con would rather have kids be pets to be babysat at a day"care" and sent to a "school" and learn to be good little workers and if their parents don't want them get rid of them or even kill them its the parents right after all you want them to be free right   
   

"what con fails to realize is when you become a parent you have no right to deny your child what they need to grow into good well rounded adults its not about the parents they knew what they where getting into when the got into bed together  its about getting your child the Education the health care and the wisdom to be a kind hard working generous individual a kid is not a pet you don't get a kid for your own enjoyment it is about creating human life and growing that person into a    well rounded adult but I am inclined to believe that con would rather have kids be pets to be babysat at a day"care" and sent to a "school" and learn to be good little workers and if their parents don't want them get rid of them or even kill them its the parents right after all you want them to be free right " (Pro, #7)

"Take away three things voters: Its based only in UK women and children (not women in general), that Pro's argument here only particularly applies to single mothers, and only slightly, and finally - that the article itself admits its working on limited information - this should - firstly - raise doubt of the actual veracity of Pro's claims - furthermore, the article clearly distinguishes between single parents and spouses, numerously stating that the affect is different based on the study - this just then says that single parents are more likely to have obese children in the UK, nothing else - this also ignores the general "obesity epidemic" which is, in general, the rise of obese children in the UK and America. 

That means that this article notes a correlation, not causation between working motherhood and staying at home - this could be the effect of other things - such as, in a single-parent household - a lack of income. Or, in general, psychological harm the child has experienced, as the Study fails to actually control for such a thing:

"Mothers in employment are likely to be different from those not in employment. Such differences, rather than employment, could be influencing child outcomes."

This means that the study is handwaving away the factor of employment entirely, which could change the entire course of the study - as this study notes:

"The study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, concluded that for every one percentage point increase in county-level unemployment between 2008 and 2012, the school children had a 4% increased risk of becoming overweight"

That would mean that the study that Pro cites does not actually account for one of the known contributors to child obesity, an oversight not their part. Again, however, it fails to argue why the potential overweightness of children in U.K, perhaps, but not most likely, caused by working mothers is more important than the agency of ALL women.

(Con, #4)

"source the catechism of the Catholic  church  https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/e3806e/pdf/#:~:text=1731%20Freedom%20is%20the%20power,one%20shapes%20one's%20own%20life.&text=This%20freedom%20characterizes%20properly%20human,or%20blame%2C%20merit%20or%20reproach.   this is the best definition of freedom simply put because the more good you do the less bad clouds your judgment the typical example given is an alcoholic who can not stop drinking he is not free because he can not choose the right option he just keeps drinking  and eventually drinks himself to death but by your secular definition he is only free if he gets to drink as much as he wants " (Pro, #7)

"Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act" [LINK]

• "Liberty - "the freedom to live as you wish or go where you want:" [D]" (Con, #2)
  

"but this hole rights argument from you is flayed to begin with because this is not and was not a legal debate its a social debate so its not really about rights its just about how humans interact with each other it has nothing to do with law it has nothing to do with rights you would not expect to be permitted to walk around in your underwear in public because freedom  now would you" (Pro, #7)

• Woman - "an adult female human being:" [A]
  
• Place - "what a person should do or is allowed to do, especially according to the rules of society:" [B]
  
• Home - "the house, apartment, etc. where you live, especially with your family:" [C]
  
• Liberty - "the freedom to live as you wish or go where you want:" [D]
  

(Con, #2)

"Cis-gendered women ought to focus their energy at the place they live." (Con, #2)

• That there are obligations that one owes to their society in order to receive basic rights and cares, and that women have no such obligation to focus their energy at the place they live. Furthermore, that for any society to have this obligation would be breaking a fundamental right that women have - agency. 
  

• Here I provide a syllogism which argues that, even if an individual is unsuited for something, IF you support freedom - THEN you support one's right to do things they aren't suited for. The same would naturally follow for things which people are suited for, having the freedom to not do it. 
  

• I provided a meta-anyaliss and argued that women are not actually any more suited for nurturing children then men are, the only reason they can be, is because they spend significantly more time with children - however - simply pushing for fathers to do the same would rectify this.