Wage gap is not real

Unless I am partially blind, the topic statement would only be true if on average women do earn the same as men(or more), across all occupations, women and men considered alike. The Wage Gap as a concept also needs to be stated by a feminist movement as a myth, as a requirement in Pro's attempt at definition. This was not fulfilled by Pro, which fails to uphold his own BoP in reference to the confinements set up by Pro the instigator himself.
Pro CONCEDED that under some circumstances and interpretations, women may be seen statistically as earning less, and the latter part of the Pro R1 argument is saying why "Although the wage gap exists, Women are not seen as less competent individuals in society" as paraphased, although I am unsure if Pro will deny or not. Pro's argument also requires external evidence(for example, "You may think that the gender pay gap is determined through a complex set of equations which considers the following"), which Pro fails to provide any, not links nor any directional redirections to help us find it.

This makes Con win on Args. Conduct against Con for forfeiture.

PRO makes a pretty traditional argument- that the gap in earnings between female workers in the US and male workers in the US is not due to a pronounced difference in wages for the same job but rather reflects higher pay for for skills that men are more likely to be capable and/or trained for- engineering and coal mining are two examples PRO gives.

CON forfeits the first half of the debate, offering no counterargument for PRO to take on. PRO merely extends. CON fails to make any positive argument in the final round and doesn't counter PRO's argument in any particular. CON interprets PRO's thesis as "PRO must prove that women are not paid less than men" but this was clearly not PRO's thesis or intention. CON states that PRO has the burden of proof and weak as PRO's argument is, he does at least bring an argument to his thesis and provide some relevant examples. CON makes no argument beyond misinterpreting PRO's thesis and provides no examples. CON hypocritically criticizes PRO for not sourcing his claims while also not providing any sources. As the only debater who made an argument, PRO must win this debate. CON reliance on a narrow interpretation of thesis is all the less compelling because the forfeit denied PRO any opportunity for clarification or re-direct.

ARGUMENTS to PRO

CONDUCT to PRO for CON's forfeit.

Basically con wins on arguments solely due to a semantic technicality where the resolution did not state "paid less for the same work"

Conduct is scored based on the forfeiture of the 1st round.

Arguments: Con demonstrated how Pro's argument seemed to defeat itself, even admitting to the wage gap existing. The rest of Pro's argument, such as the causes of the wage gap, were irrelevant to the resolution.

Sources: Neither side used sources.

S/G: Both sides had good readability.

Conduct: Obviously goes to Pro, considering Con's forfeiture.

CON is ultimately right that PRO admitted there was a waye gap as per the description. So ultimately CON wins.

PRO does get points for conduct because CON forfeited and then responded in the last round out of two rounds. Would have been interesting to see a rebuttal from PRO.

Sources tied because neither really used a source.

Spelling and grammar tied because both were easy to understand and used good grammar and spelling practices.

Conduct for the forfeit and all new arguments by Con being when Pro cannot rebuke, in fact I could just give the win on that alone.

Pro's case is simple and since Con didn't abuse his/her/their already abusive position in order to give sources backing what is said, Pro wins the debate.

The wages are exactly equal at every job level, which Pro says here:

"Truly though, it is simply calculated on a basis of averages. What is the average income of men, then women. They do not take into account how many women are working, or if they take time off.

For example, are women taking gender majors in college or engineering? You must also take into account that men take jobs such as coal mining, where women are either unwilling to preform or lack the physical abilities.

You must also ask, did they have children? and if so, when the children went to school, did she still work full time or leave the job to be more flexible?
I await your response."

In other words, Pro implied already the accurate idea that the primary gap is due to less women being in as many high paying jobs as men, not earning less at the same level with the same hours put in.

Furthermore, both sides completely ignore the difference between salary and wage and since Con didn't define wage either, I am able to use a dictionary and choose my own applicable definition that I see as most sensible here.

A wage, as opposed to a salary is as follows:

"a particular amount of money that is paid, usually every week, to an employee, especially one who does work that needs physical skills or strength, rather than a job needing a college education"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wage

It is always knowsn to me and most to be held opposed to a SALARY or one-off massive payment for a 'big job' or 'big series of jobs'.

Since Con only replies when Pro can't defend, it is just as fair for me to understand and see what Pro naturally was instantly leading to because inside of what Pro wrote it discusses all the other factors at play including what level the women work at vs the men.

The idea Pro is getting at is that at the same level, wages are identical. Neither side touched on what a wage is as opposed to a salary making that a tied point and also leading into why Con saying Pro conceded is nonsense, as Con ignored all the reasons and questions Pro gave.

Con Forfeited half of a two-round debate, and presented his argument in the very end, where Pro can't address. While Con did make a good point about Pro's acknowledging a gap, Con does not do his due diligence in tying this back to the resolution which states that "the" wage gap, in accordance to feminist description, is not real. In other words, it would have been up to Con to demonstrate the reason an "average gap" undermines Pro's affirmation. Merely stating that Pro acknowledges "a gap" does not suffice.

As for reliable sources, neither Pro nor Con used any, and their spelling grammar was sufficient.

Conduct is obviously awarded to Pro because he participated in all of the rounds, whereas Con presented his argument at the very end.

My vote goes to Pro.

Conduct to Pro because of Con's forfeit.

Con pointed out that Pro admitted that the wage gap was real. While Pro provided a variety of explanations for the wage gap, the debate resolution was not "The wage gap is not a result of sexism," but rather "The wage gap is not real." Pro's arguments attacked a particular explanation for WHY the wage gap exists, but he admitted THAT it exists. Con noticed this and argued accordingly. Thus, he wins arguments.

I don't think that the lack of sources had any impact on the debate because Pro's arguments were irrelevant to the resolution anyway, so I won't award any source points.