Argufight
Call the winner — free, earn Call Score if you nail it
priyangasheema 50%
50% Jshwtf
Jshwtf wins(0–3)
160
235
Round 1
Feminism itself is the reason why women are still treated with respectful and are able to achieve greater heights, contries from where mala yusuf came from is a prime example where if there's no such movement that supports women's welfare and development then the fate of the girls who live in Pakistan will be one day ours as well
JshwtfAGAINST
we don't nessesarily need feminism, because the fundamental goal of feminism, gender equality, can be pursued through universal human rights rather than a movement focused primarily on women.
Round 2
Feminism isn't just about women rights only in fact feminism also ensures that both the genders are getting equal opportunities only for their skill that that there's no gender bias included, human rights cannot be everywhere among the public to solve issues among common work places
JshwtfAGAINST
Saying that women still experience discrimination doesn't automatically prove that feminism is necessary. Problems like discrimination, violence, and unequal treatment can be addressed through broader principles of equality that protect everyone, including men who may face gender based disadvantages too.
Round 3
Equality is an ideal aspect that is proven to fail in a laot of governmental system, in fact we need equity, which feminism helps the citizens to get, something government cannot provide for sure
JshwtfAGAINST
again as stated in my first statement: feminisms fundamental goal which is gender equality can be pursued through universal human rights rather than a movement focused primarily on women. Governments already use policies such as anti-discrimination laws, social programs, accessibility measures, and targeted assistance to address unequal circumstances. So the real question isn't “Do we need equity?”, but “Does providing equity require feminism?” Those are two different claims.
Round 4
That is what were speaking for a democratic government, what about countries like North Korea where dictatorship is prevalent and no such laws for anti discrimination is made?
JshwtfAGAINST
A dictatorship lacking equal rights doesn't prove that feminism is necessary; it proves that authoritarianism can suppress fundamental rights and freedoms. If the principle is equal human rights, then people in North Korea would need broader human rights protections, not necessarily feminism specifically.
Round 5
North Korea does have anti discrimination laws just like the ones in a democratic country , but what guarentee can younprovide that human rights can be efficient than a movement which is made by the public themselves? girl children have been benefitted by the fact that this moment has infact given women's right to vote and women's educational rights
JshwtfAGAINST
I don't deny that feminism played an important role in securing women's right to vote and improving women's access to education. But you need to prove why feminism is still nessesary today My argument is that we should preserve the principle behind those achievements, equal rights and equal moral consideration, and apply it universally rather than assuming that feminism itself must remain the necessary solution. A public movement can create change, but that doesn't mean the movement is the only institution capable of protecting the rights it helped establish.