Quotas for women in high government positions should exist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
(1) I'm Pro; my opponent is Con.
(2) Burden of proof is shared.
(3) No new arguments in the final round.
(4) Character limited to 10,000 characters per speech (i.e. Pro gets 10,000 characters in Pro's R1, Con gets 10,000 characters in Con's R1, and so on) -- anything above 10,000 characters should not be considered by judges; if a speech exceeds 10,100 characters, it is an auto-loss for the debater whose speech exceeded that amount. Characters include spaces.
(5) Judges should award a tie on "sources," "conduct," and "spelling and grammar" points.
(6) For judges, DDO standards for "select winner" judging apply and RFDs are required for all votes. The standards are accessible here (http://www.debate.org/forums/Debate.org/topic/68208/).
(7) This debate does not take place in any particular country; however, neither debater is required to argue for or against this policy in extreme circumstances. I expect this debate to be a reasonable debate rather than one where the semantics of this topic are exploited (e.g. Con can't make an argument that says "Pro's plan would be harmful in North Korea").
Do you want to get this debate deleted?
Well, nothing in this debate talks about the US. See rule 7.
That would mean, since the majority of nations in the world are developing, this debate primarily takes place in developing countries.
I do think it exists in developed countries such as the US too, though.
Oh it certainly exists in the developing world. But I don't see any convincing evidence that it exists in developed countries such as the United States.
You don't view the existence of institutional sexism as a defensible position? Even in the developing world?
All those arguments seem to presume the continued existence of institutional sexism. I guess that's where the root cause of our disagreement lies.
Yeah sure, I don't mind that.
I will vote on this and will tie the votes so I get a voting point.
I would've said: (1) This upholds the ethical principle of recompense for historic and current injustice. (2) Critical mass theory, i.e. more women represented in national legislatures leads to better policies for women. (3) This helps break stereotypes about whether women can be in positions of power. I think it's a very defensible position, and I was in favor of this before the debate and would've argued it if I had more time, though I'm now reconsidering my position and am undecided.
I'm really curious as to what your arguments would have been... I don't view this as a defensible position.