debate on women enpowernment
Answers
Explanation:
1. Women Empowerment in the form of a debate between two persons representing completely different point of views and mentalities. While “Person A” speaks in favor of the fact that Women Empowerment is a reality while “Person B” speaks against the concept of Women Empowerment. Readers are free to draw their own conclusions.
2. Person A: “Women Empowerment Is a Reality”
3. In 1931, at Second Round Table Conference, Mahatma Gandhi had announced that his aim was to establish a political society in India, in which women would enjoy the same rights as men and the teeming millions of India would be ensured dignity as well as justice which will be Social, Economic and Political.
MARK IT AS BRAINLIEST
Answer:
Empowering women would indirectly empower evil space invaders.
Therefore, we shouldn’t permit the empowerment of women.
Now you’ll notice that if you accept the premises, the conclusion actually follows. The argument is valid, in the technical sense of logic: the premises imply the conclusion. But you’ll presumably also notice that the argument is, um, not very good. The first premises is just plain false.
And therein lies the problem. There are lots of arguments against empowering women. And it’s easy enough to construct arguments that are actually valid. But offhand it’s hard to imagine one that’s valid and has plausible premises. There are lots of traditional bad arguments. They assume that women are too weak, or too emotional, or that empowering women goes against the natural order of things, or against the divinely-ordained roles that God wants women to occupy. The first three of these are just plain false. As for the fourth, even if there is a god who doesn’t want women to do the things that women have proved themselves quite capable of doing (leading nations, running businesses, serving in the military…) all this would show is that this god isn’t worthy of anyone’s devotion.
Let’s say that an argument is reasonable if it doesn’t commit any fallacies, and appeals to premises that might very well be true. I assume it’s arguments of that sort that you’re looking for. The problem is that not every question has two reasonable sides. There’s no good argument for reinstating slavery. There’s no good argument for believing that the earth is flat. And it sure looks like there’s no good argument for denying women power and responsibility that we give to men.
Still, what if I’m on the debate team, and my side has been given the job of arguing against the empowerment of women? What would I do?
I’d adopt a different strategy. I’d concede up front that the usual arguments are bad. I’d also concede that if there are any goodarguments against empowering women, they’ll almost certainly be equally good against empowering men. And then I’d ask: are there any arguments against “empowering” people in general? What do we mean by “empowering”? What’s the underlying idea of power here? Are there any senses of “power” that make it doubtful that anyone should have power in that sense? My bet is that if you think about it, you’ll come up with some. And then I’d make my argument around those. I’d argue that in at least some sense of “empower,” we shouldn’t empower anyone, and so in particular, we shouldn’t empower women. But the point would be that insofar as this is true, it’s not because women are different than men. It’s because in the relevant respects, men and women are the same.
That’s one way to go. No doubt there are others. The key, I’d suggest, is to look for a twist. Look for arguments that don’t depend on the usual bad reasons but instead find a way to reframe the question. Doing that may lead you to interesting ideas that usually get overlooked.
Anyway, good luck!