What's wrong with equal rights?

[rickrock]

Hi, nice to see you all.

I'm trying to prepare for a debate I am suppose to have soon in Honors American History. I was appointed to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). I've done research on what it is and how it was soon turned into the Women's Equality Amendment. which is what the entire debate has turned into, but I would like to be prepared for anything else. Oh, my teacher also chose 4 guys (against) to go against 4 women (for). My debate partners aren't the best students either, so I would need to be ready to carry all the weight on my shoulders.

I have a few cons: Women would be eligible for the Draft, we'd have to reconsider many labor laws, abolish the presumption that the husband should support his wife and take away Social Security benefits for wives and widows. It would also give federal courts and the federal government enormous new powers to reinterpret every law that makes a distinction based on gender, such as those related to marriage, divorce and alimony. The 14th Amendment already protects from gender discrimination but the problem seems to be enforcement.


I've found many articles opposing the amendment but none that really give a reason why. Any help would be greatly appreciated :]

[secrets0stolen]

Your opposition will probably try to frame your argument as being against equal rights and not just the ERA (like you did in the title). If you let them do so, you will be The Bad Guy. If you focus on details (especially ones that are likely to confuse people but that sound convincing and that your opposition is not likely to have a retort to) and make sure to qualify that you're not actually "against equal rights", you may have a better shot.

My strategy is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, but a lot of people will buy it and this is about the debate, not the issue.

Who's judging the debate and with what parameters?

[rickrock]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Your opposition will probably try to frame your argument as being against equal rights and not just the ERA (like you did in the title). If you let them do so, you will be The Bad Guy. If you focus on details (especially ones that are likely to confuse people but that sound convincing and that your opposition is not likely to have a retort to) and make sure to qualify that you're not actually "against equal rights", you may have a better shot.

My strategy is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, but a lot of people will buy it and this is about the debate, not the issue.

Who's judging the debate and with what parameters?

Thanks, I was sort of hoping to catch people's eye with my title :]
Well, I was in Public Forum Debate for a while so I know how to write a speech, unfortunately, this isn't going to be the same. I don't believe I'll get a speech or x-examination. I'm expecting it to be an hour of everyone yelling at each other. My teacher will be judging. She promised to be unbiased and since there is no experience in debating in this class I'm sure the grade will be completely based on whether or not we've done the research.

Yes, that's usually my strategy as well :]

"To win a debate you don't have to prove yourself right, you have to prove the opposer wrong."

[secrets0stolen]

All the better that it's about the research. Go look for problems people could have with the detail of the repercussions (like the ones you mentioned) and be very knowledgeable and specific about them. Are you allowed to have flashcards up there?

[ZephyrusX]

Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

I've never read this so I don't know the details of the legislation. But, I would personally look it over and see if the legislation is impractical. I wouldn't focus on whether or not there ought to be equal rights. SOS is right; you'll just end up being the bad guy (and may be rightly so ).

I know in Canada some attempts at enforcing Equal Rights don't really work out that well. For government jobs, the law states that a minority has to be hired if his/her qualifications are equal to another candidate (non minority). But how the hell do you establish 'equality'? And who can realistically pursue this legal recourse if they are actually being discriminated against because of their minority status? If you need to work full time, have children, work the 'double shift', look after your aging parents, are a single mother yada yada... will you have the time and financial resources to sue an employer if you expect them of discrimination?

The law sounds nice, but I don't know how effective it actually is.

[rickrock]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

All the better that it's about the research. Go look for problems people could have with the detail of the repercussions (like the ones you mentioned) and be very knowledgeable and specific about them. Are you allowed to have flashcards up there?

I will, thanks.
I don't know of any rules against it, so I'll make a few.

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I've never read this so I don't know the details of the legislation. But, I would personally look it over and see if the legislation is impractical. I wouldn't focus on whether or not there ought to be equal rights. SOS is right; you'll just end up being the bad guy (and may be rightly so ).

I know in Canada some attempts at enforcing Equal Rights don't really work out that well. For government jobs, the law states that a minority has to be hired if his/her qualifications are equal to another candidate (non minority). But how the hell do you establish 'equality'? And who can realistically pursue this legal recourse if they are actually being discriminated against because of their minority status? If you need to work full time, have children, work the 'double shift', look after your aging parents, are a single mother yada yada... will you have the time and financial resources to sue an employer if you expect them of discrimination?

The law sounds nice, but I don't know how effective it actually is.

Hey now I didn't say my views on it.
Yeah, the law isn't what's wrong it's how to enforce it that is the problem. I'll research some more. Thanks.

[secrets0stolen]

Also maybe watch some academic debates that don't require a lot of specific knowledge (you might want to dedicate your time elsewhere, but it's something to consider).

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by rickrock

I will, thanks.
I don't know of any rules against it, so I'll make a few.



Hey now I didn't say my views on it.
Yeah, the law isn't what's wrong it's how to enforce it that is the problem. I'll research some more. Thanks.

It might be a nice touch to find an example of a piece of legislation that was effective in promoting equal rights.

What exactly is the Equal Rights Amendment anyway? I faintly recall it being linked to employment discrimination... Am I way off?

[rickrock]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

It might be a nice touch to find an example of a piece of legislation that was effective in promoting equal rights.

What exactly is the Equal Rights Amendment anyway? I faintly recall it being linked to employment discrimination... Am I way off?

That's part of it. It's discrimination entirely. By law you wouldn't be able to discriminate at schools or places of employment, hospitals and things like that, but I'm also sure things will carry over to trying to put an end to discrimination in society. Such as making it okay to be a stay at home father and having the wife bring in most of the money, or even having the woman pay for dates ;D

I'm not against the idea, just the amendment. It already exists and the fact that it was overrun and turned into the Women's Equality Amendment, focusing specifically on getting women equal rights, I don't see how that's equal at all. Either we're all equal or none of us are. Which is what the 14th amendment already puts into place.

[Elrond]

Prepare for personal attacks and decide how you will balance being defensive about that and not letting the opposition frame or derail the debate.

If you're american, maybe you can emphasize how it will lead to more bureaucracy and government intervention/spending, and how it will be hard to enforce, and how it will be possible to abuse it (if any of those are true). My impression is that many americans don't like the notion of government very much.

[ZephyrusX]

How about debating the issue in a way that truely resonates with you? Rather than placating the audience by deliberately pushing their buttons. You might lose some points, but at least you'll have your own self-integrity.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by rickrock

I'm not against the idea, just the amendment. It already exists and the fact that it was overrun and turned into the Women's Equality Amendment, focusing specifically on getting women equal rights, I don't see how that's equal at all. Either we're all equal or none of us are. Which is what the 14th amendment already puts into place.

Yah, I think one of my profs brought this up in the past. When I asked her about it, she said that it would make it easier for minoritites to have the equal right laws enforced. But she never explained why. So I can't help you there

[Brutha]

According to Wikipedia the text is:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.[1][2]
You can have your whole discussion about state rights and whether congress has the right to overrule the laws that are passed by parliaments of the states.

[rickrock]

Originally Posted by Brutha

According to Wikipedia the text is:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.[1][2]
You can have your whole discussion about state rights and whether congress has the right to overrule the laws that are passed by parliaments of the states.

Thank you!

[Sfumato]

Originally Posted by rickrock

Thank you!

Careful with that tactic as any decent debater will bog down your argument based on the the arguments made for states rights VS Federal power Before, during and after the Civil war. Also, the power of Fed as expanded during WWI and later during the New Deals (yes there were 3 separate new deals in that 6 year period).

[Brutha]

Careful with that tactic as any decent debater will bog down your argument based on the the arguments made for states rights VS Federal power Before, during and after the Civil war.

He doesn't debate against decent debaters.

If you have a decent debate but debates against unexperienced students.
If I would a decent debate than I would probably speak about establishing need for the law.

Also, the power of Fed as expanded during WWI and later during the New Deals (yes there were 3 separate new deals in that 6 year period).

The fact that the power of the Fed expanded during WWI or the New Deals doesn't mean that it was either right to expand the power or that another expansion of power is a good idea.

The amendment didn't get ratified because the states didn't want to give up their power. The difference between the Women's Equality Amendment and the Equal Rights Amendment is that the Women's Equality Amendment would transfer less power to the Fed. They dropped section 2.

[wstein]

All people are NOT equal, some are incapable of handling those rights, some are not. In this society the nots include criminals, mentally disabled, mentally ill, children, medically unconscious, etc. There is no clear cut place to draw the line.

Treating everyone equal lowers everyone to the lowest common denominator. For examples, everyone has to accept the minimally capable driver on the road, most easily swayed voter at the polls, government spending based on the recommendations of the very same people in personal debt.

Equal rights forces everyone in the same role whether or not they want it. As in your example above, women and men would have to go to war.

Equal rights ignores the beliefs of minority groups in favor of the majority, especially religious groups. Arranged marriages or choose your own partner? This is the rights of the parent versus the right of the child. There is no ‘correct’ answer but in a equal society it has to be one way or the other.