Question

Suffrage Debate

Answer 1

Your task to compete in the debate:
Craft your argument by using textual evidence/outside evidence from your own research and your textbook.
Bring and use 1 primary source document (Images, relevant speeches, etc.) to make your argument case.
You must identify the source of the document by either addressing the author/speaker, purpose/message, POV, or audience
Create 5 questions to challenge your opponent’s position.
All of your information needs to be typed and turned in the day of the debate
Works cited in MLA format

Answer 2

@Shadow can you make some questions for pro suffrage?

Answer 3

1. What is the resolution (prompt that is being debated upon)?
2. When is the debate?
3. Have you started on this?

Answer 4

yep! I'm almost done with it!

Answer 5

Post what you have

Answer 6

Yeah give me a few moments, I want to make my argument as strong as possible

Answer 7

That's what I'm here for.

Answer 8

Hurry before I decide to take a nap (:

Answer 9

Go help Mr. Worried first.

Answer 10

@shadow so my position is that I am anti suffrage and I am most likely arguing why that is better

Answer 11

Do you know what suffrage is?

Answer 12

@shadow do you think I am some idiot with a C in the class

Answer 13

Ok maybe I do have a C but ik what it is

Answer 14

Women’s suffrage: all women would receive their ballots at the same time, without racial, education, or class distinctions.

Answer 15

Not women's suffrage. Suffrage.

Answer 16

Suffrage is the right to vote.

Answer 17

The first thing you do in preparation for a debate is understand the terms.

Answer 18

Ik what it means

Answer 19

mhm

Answer 20

So why are you against women having the right to vote?

Answer 21

let me get this done first

Answer 22

We believe that it is a hierarchical society, and that the males should be top!
Most women didn't even want to vote anyways.
Some did! > They should focus on taking care of the house and children more.
Women didn’t have time to vote or stay updated on politics! They have more important things to do, like taking care of the home and children. We (for males, we have to work for the family to get money, and even females, who had to work at the house) did their jobs, so females shouldn’t intrude in the clear division between males and females
Since males got more education than most females, they lacked the mental capacity to understand what’s actually going on with politics or voting.
Adding women’s votes would double the electorate of ever state, which would make voting cost more without adding any new actual value.
Women and males were different. Males were more political and had to deal with work outside the home. Females were most of the times inside the home. They were different and they should stay that way. Why should we mess up the heirarchy?
Politics can be a dirty world. Why should we involve females in this so that they can become corrupt as well?
People just didn’t like how they affected regular men’s lives. It was weird that mothers got out of their comfort zone to relate in voting.
If women go politically, who is going to protect the children, keep the home sturdy, and female obligations while the men work?
We just don’t like how this threats to the Christian and capitalist world that we like.
Suppose that a male stays home to stay care of the kids and the house and also work as well, and the female is outside engaging in politics. It is too abrupt of a change, and this can distort the social order which can change everything
Antisuffragists like Lord Curzon thought women could not join the army or the police, so they should not be given responsibility for sending men to war and or for making laws which men must enforce.
Some people thought women were the weaker sex, because if they weren’t weak, there would be more advanced social reforms along time ago. If you put a weak person in charge, how is a government going to function?
Women’s National AntiSuffrage League in 1908- Women were as capable as males, but they thought they were destined for another path other than politics.
Kate Roosevelt, a random lady, thought that women were made to be for childbearers
*Not a complete list*

Answer 23

"Most women didn't even want to vote anyways."
Do you have proof?

Answer 24

Did your teacher give you some sort of a prompt

Answer 25

Yea the evidence continues from there

Answer 26

Like i.e how most thought that it would wreck the social hierarchy
they were made for something else other than politics, etc

Answer 27

and my image I added on says that 85 percent of females didn't want to vote so I can supplement that

Answer 28

Give me the source for that image.

Answer 29

Also, did your teacher give you some prompt, or did he just say Pro vs Anti Suffrage.

Answer 30

No prompt I guess

Answer 31

So you are arguing in the context of what time frame?

Answer 32

1920?

Answer 33

Times matter as it provides for what information you're allowed to use.

Answer 34

Early 20th century

Answer 35

For example, right now, women vote more than men.

Answer 36

And women are doing better in school.

Answer 37

what

Answer 38

2. When is the debate?

Answer 39

You didn't answer this

Answer 40

Tomorrow, but I'm not stressed

Answer 41

k I'm tired, late are you staying up

Answer 42

how late*

Answer 43

haha it's okay I think I got enough evidence to beat this person up verbally

Answer 44

Shadow get some rest.
I got this dw

Answer 45

We believe that it is a hierarchical society, and that the males should be top!
(So you are for inequality?)

Most women didn't even want to vote anyways.
(All you have is an image that could have been photoshopped. You do not have an actual site sourced).

Some did! > They should focus on taking care of the house and children more.
(But they aren't allowed to vote on the policymakers who shape the budgets for her child's school and the taxes on her house?)

Women didn’t have time to vote or stay updated on politics! They have more important things to do, like taking care of the home and children.
(They stay at home doing this, where the TV is. Women socialize. Women are extroverted.)

We (for males, we have to work for the family to get money, and even females, who had to work at the house) did their jobs, so females shouldn’t intrude in the clear division between males and females
(Males have a job which would indicate that they have less time to keep up with politics).

Since males got more education than most females, they lacked the mental capacity to understand what’s actually going on with politics or voting.
(Mental capacity sounds like you are calling women inherently dumb. You should stick to the verbiage of them lacking an education, else you will sound like a misogynist).

Adding women’s votes would double the electorate of ever state, which would make voting cost more without adding any new actual value.
(America is a democratic republic, where everyone is allowed to vote and we choose representatives to represent us. Why are we ignoring half of us, half of the U.S. population? Do we pride money over having the thoughts and views of women being represented in legislation, as this AFFECTS them too. Not just males)

Women and males were different. Males were more political and had to deal with work outside the home. Females were most of the times inside the home. They were different and they should stay that way. Why should we mess up the heirarchy?
(You spelled hierarchy wrong.)
(Women didn't stay in home all day. They socialized. That's enough for them to be acquainted with the reality of life and the consequences of politics being imposed on the people.)

Politics can be a dirty world. Why should we involve females in this so that they can become corrupt as well?
(You are saying the act of voting makes someone corrupt?)

People just didn’t like how they affected regular men’s lives. It was weird that mothers got out of their comfort zone to relate in voting.
(They are going out of their comfort zone to have their beliefs represented in the government, and have America be what it says it is, a government which REPRESENTS its people.)

If women go politically, who is going to protect the children, keep the home sturdy, and female obligations while the men work?
(politically -> political)
(Men protect the children and keep the home sturdy too. Who is to say that men and women can do both. And who is to say that women can't be political and take care of their kids and the house.)

We just don’t like how this threats to the Christian and capitalist world that we like.
Suppose that a male stays home to stay care of the kids and the house and also work as well, and the female is outside engaging in politics. It is too abrupt of a change, and this can distort the social order which can change everything.
(The 13th and 14th amendment were abrupt changes which distorted the social order. Were those bad?)

Antisuffragists like Lord Curzon thought women could not join the army or the police, so they should not be given responsibility for sending men to war and or for making laws which men must enforce.
(The best argument I've seen you propose).

Some people thought women were the weaker sex, because if they weren’t weak, there would be more advanced social reforms along time ago. If you put a weak person in charge, how is a government going to function?
(Less muscle mass doesn't mean they can't think).

Women’s National AntiSuffrage League in 1908- Women were as capable as males, but they thought they were destined for another path other than politics.
Kate Roosevelt, a random lady, thought that women were made to be for childbearers.
(Same argument I presented earlier, of women being able to vote for policymakers who create the legislation which affects their children).

Answer 46

Ur thinking too much,,,

Answer 47

1. You chose the hard option, anti-suffrage. There aren't too many good arguments for this. I am personally pro-suffrage. I can think of some good anti ones but they don't convince me.
2. Your arguments are meh. They would help if I saw actual links and sources.
3. Elaborate on this one:
Antisuffragists like Lord Curzon thought women could not join the army or the police, so they should not be given responsibility for sending men to war and or for making laws which men must enforce.
(The best argument I've seen you propose).

Get the source for this one:
Most women didn't even want to vote anyways.
(All you have is an image that could have been photoshopped. You do not have an actual site sourced).

Answer 48

I'm on 3hrs of sleep. If I can do this. Then you're in for trouble tomorrow.

Answer 49

I didn't choose it, he specifically chose females for anti suffrage ):

Answer 50

Lol

Answer 51

hahahahahhaa

Answer 52

Yeah I'm tired but that's actually hilarious.

Answer 53

Adding women’s votes would double the electorate of ever state, which would make voting cost more without adding any new actual value.
(America is a democratic republic, where everyone is allowed to vote and we choose representatives to represent us. Why are we ignoring half of us, half of the U.S. population? Do we pride money over having the thoughts and views of women being represented in legislation, as this AFFECTS them too. Not just males)

Answer 54

That and the other two I pointed out are your stronger arguments.

Answer 55

Develop those and you'll be fine

Answer 56

Dw my partner is stupid

Answer 57

I know but he just has to try a little bit, and your house of cards comes tumbling down.

Answer 58

I'm just saying, you are the people I would eat for breakfast in debate rounds.

Answer 59

How would I make my arguments strong?

Answer 60

I can use those questions you made for me to improve my arguments, but it's going to cause even more questions yk

Answer 61

This is the source for that pamphlet.
http://www.crusadeforthevote.org/naows-opposition/

For my debate rounds, we wouldn't use 'pictures' but printouts of the website itself. It's a bit more official than "hey here is something I could have whipped up in photoshop."

Answer 62

I assume this isn't as formal. But it's still good to have the link in case someone asks.

Answer 63

crusadeforthevote.org sounds better than Google Images, if someone asks where you got it.

Answer 64

That's where I got it from and a majority of these arguments

Answer 65

"Led by Josephine Dodge, the founder and first president, the NAOWS believed that woman suffrage would decrease women’s work in communities and their ability to effect societal reforms."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/National-Association-Opposed-to-Woman-Suffrage

Answer 66

I have the source under it lmaooo I just didn't say it

Answer 67

You ought to. It's common practice in debate to know your sources and have them visible.

Answer 68

I'm just gonna end it like this, but thank you sm <3

Answer 69

Good luck, let me know how it goes.