Log in

No account? Create an account
I have been given a debate in which i have to argue that Women should… - Debate God [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ website | Website FAQ ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Links:| Religious Tolerance ]

[May. 5th, 2005|10:20 pm]


[Feeling |aggravatedaggravated]

I have been given a debate in which i have to argue that
Women should NOT be paid the same prize money as Men in sport....'
and i am finding it extremely difficult to argue such a point(especially cos i am a girl)
but i would appreciate it greatly if everyone could just cast their conscience aside for a moment to think about this..... adn i would really love to hear any arguments for this statement

[User Picture]From: jbarros
2005-07-06 06:38 am (UTC)
oh, this ones easy... for anyone with a knoweldge of recient american corperate history (even if I cant spell)

we operate on a set of outdated basis' and from that we're good to go:

the Male is responsible for feeding his family

the male is a "better" athelete

or what I feel is a valid modern day argument:

the predominantly male audiance of sports pays to watch manly sports, make grunting noises, and pretend that he could do that. Hence male players generate more income, and hence should be allowed a bigger cut himself. (this last one being the only one I believe may still be valid)

I have no numbers to back it up, but if you've got to spew bs, then this should be a start :)

-- James
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: elvis_angel09
2005-07-15 07:07 am (UTC)
That's certainly correct. In fact, WUSA (Women's United Soccer Association) went bankrupt, because many people didn't watch it. Of course, it is expected to come back in '06.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: tyciol
2005-11-07 04:22 am (UTC)
The listed corporate reasons are good ones.

If you want an unbiased reasonable one, it's tougher. I guess I'd have to say that since men are generally better athletes (statistics and Olympics don't lie) and that if they were to compete against each other, males would be the higher-end athletes, that the men provide a better spectacle and demonstration of prowess.

That's what it comes down to, not the individual. Someone untalented could try 10x more than the most talented person, but just not measure up, and that's the case with women.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: anastasei
2006-10-04 05:22 pm (UTC)

A few simple arguments

This kind of depends on the context. Mainly, does it refer to men and women in the same contest, or a mans contest and a womans contest? An argument for the first case would be difficult, but if it's the latter, it's simple enough.

Consider: is there any moral reason why anyone should get prize money for sports at all? I don't see one. So any moral arguments about whether men and women should get equal or different prize money aren't really relevant. I think any reasons why people get prize money for sports are profit-based. Either:
1. The prize is based on an entrance-fee paid by the competitors. The more people competing, the greater a prize there will be (and less chance of winning it). If there is evidence that there will be more competitors in a men's tournament than a women's, there is therefore basis for the men's prize to be greater than the women's.
2. The prize is based on income from people who will be watching the sport. If the men's sports are more popular than the women's sports, they will generate more income and therefore greater prizes. (Though this may be just being based on men's sports being more established in culture, and might therefore change over time.)
(Reply) (Thread)