The current wage gap between men and women is likely inaccurate and not a reliable piece of information.

"women in the workforce earn 82 cents to every mans dollar."

However, for women and men working the same job, women earn 99 cents for every mans dollar according to the article.

"A possible reason for this large variance is that women in the workforce do not work as hard as men on average or do not put much of their time into their jobs, and so are promoted to higher positions less and hence why there is such a large difference. If so, it wouldn't support feminism as a woman could be just as capable as a man of moving through the hierarchy of jobs, but would rather support the conclusion that women choose to work less hard. According to this Harvard study, "women view professional advancement as equally attainable, but less desirable". This supports the conclusion that it is likely that women overall choose to work less hard as they find professional advancement as less desirable and thus would be less inclined to work hard towards it. In addition, according to this Washington Post article, men work 42 additional minutes every day than women. This further shows my point, as working for longer periods makes it more likely that one will be able to advance their careers. According to this article by NewAmerica.org, fathers take median of 1 week of paternity leave while mothers take a median of 11. In addition, according this article by WorkPartners, "the longer women are [on maternity leave], the more they may be overlooked for promotions and have lower upward mobility in moving into management roles and receiving pay raises". Women overall take longer periods of maternity leave, which may inhibit growth at a company. This is yet more evidence to show that all the gender wage gap may not be showing significant evidence for the idea that women are paid less due to sexism. "

"This is due to the fact that all of the above evidence is circumstantial and while indicating that sexism is not the factor does not prove it. Despite that fact, the evidence I provided shows enough evidence to where it is unclear whether or not sexism is at play or not, and thus the evidence is not significant or a highly reliable of information. "

• Set up definitions and a framework
  
• Showed, using numerous reliable sources, why the wage gap is real, and a reliable piece of information
  
• Demonstrated how my opponent's arguments are irrelevant and fail to uphold the resolution
  

2. Interpreted resolution

"It is more likely than not that men and women do not have a difference in wages."

It is an undeniable fact that women make less than men, an assertion supported by numerous reliable sources.

My opponent has even admitted this, as shown in his opening argument:

"women in the workforce earn 82 cents to every mans dollar."

Therefore, I have upheld the resolution, by showing that it is likely there is a current wage gap between men and women.

However, for women and men working the same job, women earn 99 cents for every mans dollar according to the article.

While this may be true, it is irrelevant to the debate. We are debating whether overall, a wage gap between genders exists.

The causes of the wage gap are irrelevant. Again, we are only debating whether it exists, not whether it is caused by sexism.

Along with the fact that this sounds suspiciously like a slightly modified Chat-GPT argument, this is also irrelevant. My opponent has spent his entire opening argument trying to prove that sexism does not cause the wage gap - inadvertently admitting that it exists, and therefore conceding the resolution.

“This is not how the debate is supposed to be interpreted.” 

“The debate is about the legitimacy of the wage gap for showing a substantial different in the wages of men and women.” 

“There are a few things that this interpretated resolution gets wrong about this.” 

“Firstly, it says that it is more likely than not that there is a difference in wages between men and women, however I do not have to prove that it is more likely than not, but simply that the evidence isn't sufficient. Insufficient evidence could very well be a majority chance that the evidence proves the claim but that it isn't high enough to actually prove it significantly.” 

“Secondly, the debate is not about whether or not men and women have different wages, it is about the legitimacy of evidence to prove that claim regarding the wage gap. This is a big difference because it constrains the evidence to whether or not men and women have significantly different wages to the wage gap.” 

“Thirdly, it uses absolutes, that is more likely than not that there is a difference in wages, not a significant different in wages.”” 

“PRO wins if he proves the current wage gap between men and women is likely inaccurate and not a reliable piece of information regarding proving sexism likely is the cause of the wage gap. [emphasis added]

CON wins if he proves the converse.” 

“The resolution was not that there is a current wage gap between men and women, as discussed previously that was an improper interpretation of the claim. Thus, this argument does not uphold the resolution.” 

“Regarding the improper interpretation of debate, it would be irrelevant, however as that interpretation was incorrect it is very much so relevant. This is because it goes to show that the wage gap between men and women may not be sexism; after all if women working the same jobs as men make the same amount of money that  would indicate that women get promoted less and that is where the disparity in wages arises. And, if women get promoted less but make the same amount of money at higher levels where they are promoted, that could mean that factors like maternity leave inhibiting promotion, women viewing promoted as less desirable and not aiming to be promoted, and women working less and thus being considered less viable candidates for promotion are all things that could contribute to the wage disparity instead of sexism.” 

“We are not debating whether or not the wage gap exists as established previously. This is about how good the wage gap is a piece of evidence to prove sexism, not if it exists.” 

“This is most certainly not from ChatGPT and I find it insulting that would insinuate that without reason, especially considering how my entire argument cited specific evidence, something that ChatGPT cannot do. And, regarding the wage gap, of course it does exist but that does not concede the resolution as the resolution is about showing that sexism likely does not cause the wage gap.” 

“My opponent has created a false interpretation of the claim and then does not back up that interpretation.” 

“They go on to say that my argument does not fit their false interpretation of the claim and thus I haven't fulfilled the resolution, despite the fact that my evidence clearly proves the actual resolution.” 

“They irrelevantly claim my essay is AI-written without any reason or proof beyond is "seeming" like it's AI-written, which is highly unprofessional in a serious debate and shows lack of character.” 

So PRO makes an ambiguous resolution, then gets salty when his opponent doesn’t interpret it in the exact and favorable way he wanted? Yeah, that’s not how debate works. 

“The debate is about the legitimacy of the wage gap for showing a substantial different in the wages of men and women.” 

And I have proved exactly that – that there is a wage gap, and it shows that there is a substantial difference in the wages of men and women. 

I’ll say it again – PRO made an ambiguous resolution, tried to change it (motte-bailey fallacy), then shifts the blame onto me. Nice try, but no. 

“Firstly, it says that it is more likely than not that there is a difference in wages between men and women, however I do not have to prove that it is more likely than not, but simply that the evidence isn't sufficient. Insufficient evidence could very well be a majority chance that the evidence proves the claim but that it isn't high enough to actually prove it significantly.” 

This argument fails for a multitude reasons. 

First, PRO is trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. However, as the affirmative side, as well as the one arguing against the accepted status quo, the burden of proof is entirely on him.  

Second, PRO is deliberately raising the bar of evidence required. Despite the resolution only saying “likely” (e.g. on balance of probabilities), PRO is now claiming I have to “prove it significantly.” I will ignore this, and ask judges to consider it as poor conduct. 

Third, it’s irrelevant anyway, because I have proved that there is wage gap between men and women, beyond a reasonable doubt. I provided six reliable sources in the first round showing that there is a wage gap. PRO contested none of them. 

“Secondly, the debate is not about whether or not men and women have different wages, it is about the legitimacy of evidence to prove that claim regarding the wage gap. This is a big difference because it constrains the evidence to whether or not men and women have significantly different wages to the wage gap.” 

This is a strange argument. PRO is basically claiming, “You haven’t proved X, because you’ve only proved X.” I have provided significant legitimate evidence to prove there is a wage gap. PRO has contested none of this evidence. 

I am not claiming “You haven’t proved X, because you’ve only proved X.”, just defining the constraints of what this debate entails. You have indeed proven there is a wage gap. I myself proved it in R1 and said the wage gap exists. Obviously I haven't contested that evidence. That is because this debate has absolutely nothing to do with whether the wage gap exists. Here is the claim: "The current wage gap between men and women is likely inaccurate and not a reliable piece of information". Where does it say the wage gap doesn't exist? All we are debating is on the legitimacy of the wage gap as a piece of evidence. That is it. 

“They go on to say that my argument does not fit their false interpretation of the claim and thus I haven't fulfilled the resolution, despite the fact that my evidence clearly proves the actual resolution.” 

PRO tries to use evidence to back up an imaginary resolution, then claims that imaginary resolution is actually the real one. 

“They irrelevantly claim my essay is AI-written without any reason or proof beyond is "seeming" like it's AI-written, which is highly unprofessional in a serious debate and shows lack of character.” 

PRO attempts to use my sarcastic comment to get voters to vote for him – undoubtedly an attempt to compensate for his lackluster arguments. 

My resolution makes more sense – a reasonable person, upon seeing the resolution, would understand it to be debating whether the current wage gap is a real piece of information. 

"Despite that fact, the evidence I provided shows enough evidence to where it is unclear whether or not sexism is at play or not,"

"PRO wins if he proves the current wage gap between men and women is likely inaccurate and not a reliable piece of information regarding proving sexism likely is the cause of the wage gap."

"...women working less and thus being considered less viable candidates for promotion are all things that could contribute to the wage disparity instead of sexism."

"This is about how good the wage gap is a piece of evidence to prove sexism, not if it exists."

"I made an argument for the original claim. You haven't." [WTF?]

"Again, you resolution is not the actual resolution. Stop trying to shift the goalposts then say I am the one shifting the goal posts." [WTF? x2]

"All we are debating is on the legitimacy of the wage gap as a piece of evidence" [changing 'information' to 'evidence']