This House Believes That the Feminist Movement Should Endorse the Usage of Hijab


There would be two separate places where this motion applies. The geographical bias would be, one, happening on liberal democratic countries (of course), and second, on the middle-east countries.

Both teams would likely have to agree on these points:

  1. That feminist movement is currently distributed with unequal ideals, beliefs, and goals throughout the whole world. Team Negative should immediately concede this point. Trying to argue otherwise would be unwise (pun unintended).
  2. That this motion strives to find out which perspective (to endorse, or not to endorse) brings about the best outcome and result for the feminist movement
  3. That all debaters, including the adjudicators, would be characterizing and putting themselves on the shoes of the feminist movement. Any other actors in this debate would be lesser actors and are of second importance.

And, our standard good old warning, as always, unless there happens to be YOLO debaters. Or trolls. Those godblessed swing teams, you know.

Now to establish the different possible stances in this debate:

  1. (+) We believe that the feminist movement throughout the world should endorse the usage of hijab.
  2. (+) We believe that the feminist movement in the middle-east should endorse the usage of hijab. This debate happens in the middle-east, and anybody who debates on behalf of the feminists in liberal democratic countries should instantly be kicked out of this chamber due to being out of the boat.
  3. (+) We believe that the feminist movement in the middle-east should endorse the usage of hijab, and we couldn’t care less if the feminists in liberal democratic countries decide to follow suit or not. If they follow (which will be our best-case scenario), then that’s good for us. We will explain the benefits further. If they don’t (which will be our worst-case scenario), we will justify why that is still okay.
  4. (+) We believe that the feminist movement in the liberal democratic countries should endorse the usage of hijab. This debate happens in the liberal democratic countries, and anybody who debates on behalf of the feminists in the middle-east countries should instantly be kicked out of this chamber due to being out of the boat.
  5. (+) We believe that the feminist movement in liberal democratic countries should endorse the usage of hijab, and we couldn’t care less if the feminists in the middle-east decide to follow suit or not. If they follow (which will be our best-case scenario), then that’s good for us. We will explain the benefits further. If they don’t (which will be our worst-case scenario), we will justify why that is still okay.

There are still other possible stances, but we couldn’t imagine an affirmative team crazy (or stupid) enough to pick a stance of “movement in MIDDLE-EAST should endorse of the usage of hijab in LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC countries” – or the other way round.

Team Affirmative is recommended to run EITHER (3) OR (5). Run (1) only if you feel that you’re likely to be undertime and don’t have enough arguments to occupy your allocated speech time. If you feel that you are going to be overtime in your speech, choose between (3) or (5). Running (2) and (4) is considered very selfish, and will put Team Affirmative at a disadvantage when Team Negative points out how selfish Team Affirmative is, and not to mention that it is still a justifiable definition challenge when Team Negative tries to change (2) into (3) and (4) into (5).

Team Negative is recommended to follow whatever the stance and direction Team Affirmative sets up the debate on. We have always discouraged definition challenges and we always will. Even if Team Affirmative sets up the debate on (2) or (4), that is still a debatable direction, although albeit unfair. Just casually mention the unfairness (in order to improve your convincingness a little bit) then move on with your arguments. But, still, if you really want to, you may challenge (2) and turn it into (3) or (4) into (5).

If there is no clear setup whatsoever from Team Affirmative, provide them with those possible options, then force them to choose one.

Team Affirmative

So, now that the urgency has been established, all that is left to satisfy our burden of proof is the goal, the solution, and the justification

  1. Why is this needed? The urgency, the problems under the status quo – done.
  2. Mitigating this course of action’s likelihood of creating side effects – justification.
  3. What is our expected outcome after the standing of this motion? The change we expect – our goal.
  4. How does this endorsement apply and succeed in carrying out answer (1) to answer (3)? The solution.

Arguments should always be catered to so that they fit somewhere within those four points, and remember; all four points should be satisfied. They are all your burdens. And now, to the assertions!

Oh, by the way, before we forget: characterize and explain the grounds for this motion a little bit. You know, just in case.

  1. Because the feminist movement faces a terribly polarized ideals throughout the whole world, and it’s harmful.

This part of explaining this assertion in this debate should be quite the happiness for Team Affirmative. Why? If Team Negative is going to concede this urgency (the wise move), then the amount of emphasis invested on this point need not be much and you can waste your allocated speech time somewhere else more important. On the other hand, if Team Negative tries to challenge the urgency, rejoice. They are already at a disadvantage in this debate.

Anyway, you have known already about the inequality within the feminist movement. Spare some seconds to just casually mention a little bit, maybe about how the feminist movement which tries to get women be accepted to wear tank-tops and boxers in public and be protected from chauvinist stares and glares and judgments from men as well as the public (because men can even be topless in public without getting shamed at), so—the feminist movement in liberal democratic countries – is nowhere going near to getting applied in the middle-east countries. Hail, the ones over there are still fighting over suffrage, for

Then, talk about how this inequality means that a demand for this endorsement is created. Talk about the process between having inequality eventually translates into pushing a demand, provide some other parallel examples (if you know any), and then you’re set.

  1. Because we have to reset the whole idea of this movement back into its starting point.

This idea is almost like a country totally abandoning development on its well-established urban areas just in order to cater to and nurture the rural areas left behind. An integral part of this explanation, especially on denoting the difference between feminist movement trying to promote equality and governments trying to build countries, is that when inequality happens between urban and rural areas, the development of the urban do not usually mean a deterioration for the rural. That is totally NOT the case with the feminist movement. For every second the movement invests in liberal democratic countries, the feminist movement image gets shattered and faces an extra layer of prejudice in the perspectives of men, the public, and even women in the middle-east. For a side note, there have been motions circulating around the debating scene with the wording “THR third-wave feminism”. Just a little bit of info regarding the distinctive difference between the first-and-second and the third, the “feminazis” term gets coined after some moderately-liberal-minded men sees the ridiculous part in the feminist beliefs. The harms? They are just MODERATELY liberal-minded. What about the liberals who are WEAK in their beliefs? What about the liberals who were just RECENTLY CONVERTED? Tell you what, these people going back to their conservative mindset is your best-case scenario. Best-case.

You should research more about first-wave, second-wave, and third-wave feminism in order to give you a better and proper understanding of this issue. That knowledge will surely help the way you explain this point.

  1. Because the benefits of having this moral support outweigh the harms.

No matter which direction of stance (1), (3), or (5) you run, it is still very likely that your analysis will end up to the characterization of the feminist movement in the middle-east. So, yeah, if you choose to run (5), you will likely run your own best-case scenario. Sorry not sorry.

Anyway, the point of this motion having arguments that eventually end up in that actor manifests in the form of a moral support. Resetting paradigm is one thing, it’s a benefit, but this moral support is another. Also a benefit. Now, explanation regarding why the moral support for these middle-east feminists is needed stems from the urgency. Another, different, urgency. Feminist movement not being able to progress because we have this third-wave feminism at the other part of the world radiating negativity is one urgency, but we are betting that you have already elaborated that part properly in Team Affirmative Argument 1. Urgencies also arise in the form of these countries’ highly conservative education in nature. And this education manifests not only in schools. They happen in the almost all families. They happen from parenting. They happen from social construct and discourse. Now, here is the catch. In order to connect this argument with the motion, identify these issues (education, parenting, discourse) in the middle-east and how they differ from the ones in liberal democratic countries. At one point, there has to be a “hijab” word somewhere in between. And that is where you come in. Because that endorsement will penetrate these issues. Hopefully leaving a positive atmosphere and a strong impact in order to justify this motion.

Team Negative

You know that you should auto-concede that feminist movement is unequal already. And then you see an affirmative team that sets up this debate on ground (2). And then we tell you that we highly discourage definition challenges. What to do? Break down and cry?

Actually, no. It just so happens that this feminist movement vary so much in nature and is so widespread that even within a single geographical setup, you can still witness evidence of three different waves occurring at the same time.

That being said, let’s move on to the assertions and explanations.

  1. Because this will create a backlash from society.

So, is this motion useless or harmful? Useless, not very likely. You may cling to the status quo, but don’t foolishly deny the precedence of urgency established. The urgency is REAL. Now, whether or not this motion is the solution, that is where you come in.

It is not as if this motion is the only solution possible and it is also not as if the status quo is not progressing.

The harm comes when you can prove that Team Affirmative is unable to ensure that all layers of society will be accommodative and accepting towards this motion. So many actors within this debate – religious elders, leaders, and devotees, then feminist movement in liberal democratic countries and in the middle-east – those are the major ones – also the minor ones like the governance system in liberal democratic countries and in the middle-east, then the educational system in liberal democratic countries and in the middle-east, including the perspectives of educators who happen to be comprised of some conservatives and some liberalists and some middle-ground pragmatists, including the perspective of student bodies who happen to be-and even some individual students who happen to be—so many of them.

You just have to find one which is not properly elaborated by Team Affirmative (that will be easier to attack, compared to the ones which are properly explained) and then just put whatever pressure you can on that point. Scrutinize and attack their ash out of that actor(s).

  1. Because the movement will not likely connect and jeopardize the current progress instead.

To further expand the elaboration in Argument 1 Team Negative: a progress is still a progress. By this point, we have an expectation that the heaviest clash between Team Affirmative and Team Negative will be here at this point. Team Affirmative declares that a setup is necessary due to the mutually exclusive nature of feminist movement development in liberal democratic countries and the middle-east, Team Negative adamantly argues that the development can happen differently for different geographical contexts at the same time. There are numerous ways you can fortify this explanation, by using pieces of history and/or anthropological-sociological theories, for example, that story of Athens versus Sparta (in terms of their governance system and treatment towards women). For now, we will cater towards another extra way this argument can be developed: one, the liberal democratic countries’ feminist movement will be halted (because they wanted a reset, right?). Halted is one thing, and it is Team Negative’s worst-case scenario and Team Affirmative’s best-case. Two, the icing on the cake, is when Team Negative advances forward to Team Negative’s best-case and Team Affirmative’s worst-case: this halt will not make the current progress stop. This halt will REVERSE the current progress.

  1. Current situation is not likely a discrepancy in development, but rather a temporary confusion.

Clarifying the confusion by having the movement take a stance is likely to induce separatism. This separatism is caused by some individuals, or some collective individuals sharing the same thoughts, or even parties, who don’t exactly identify or even know where this particular body of their own feminist movement stand for beforehand. Various phenomena throughout history have proven that this particular group constitutes the “silent majority”. And things would actually spiral out of control the moment we cannot properly confirm which part of this silent majority connects to which ideals, and yet establish a radical action anyway. Go figure, Arab spring.

This argument tends to challenge the inapplicability of the motion time-wise. As a comparison to make this argument more easily understood, consider a motion of “THW introduce a quota of female politicians in the legislative body of governments in middle-eastern countries”. The most easily identifiable contradictive stance of its Team Affirmative and Team Negative is also in the applicability of the motion time-wise. Team Affirmative wants to carry out the motion ASAP (of course). Why? Because they believe in an idea of a radical change being implemented at present, then hopefully the people will learn to cope and adapt accordingly, as time passes. Team Negative, on the other hand, wants to delay the motion long enough – let the current status quo improve itself, let social discourse, parenting style, and education introduce equality in different sexes for as much as possible, so that, after we are confident enough that these values have been properly ingrained on the societies’ mindsets, we can carry out the motion afterwards, without any fear of a “sudden shock” taking place. Not like Team Affirmative – they want to conduct a “shock therapy” then expect the people to deal with that therapy, adapt, and adjust accordingly.

Extra Assertions:

  1. (+) Because this will likely generate support from the moderately (and, hopefully, highly) devoted religious. And we need that support.
  2. (-) Because endorsements mean favoritism of an otherwise supposedly to be neutral body/institution.
  3. (+) Because we can only truly properly progress without any discrepancies within our movement with a single-interpretation of our movement, not multi.
  4. (-) Because religion is likely to interpret this motion as hypocrisy.
  5. (+) Actually, hey; if this halt will cause a reverse in the progress (of that of the liberal democratic countries’ ones), then that would actually be beneficial for us: supposing that the current situation puts the feminist movement in liberal democratic countries in Phase 3rd and the one in middle-east at Phase 1st , then, if we attempt this, by the time we improved the one in middle-east to its Phase 2nd, the one in liberal democratic countries will have reverted back to Phase 2nd as well. And then our proposed reset reaches it goal faster than expected. We can start nurturing them both together at the same time again (argh, grr, too many assumptive arguments at this point – better find out more pragmatic ones or at least pragmatic supportive explanations and examples).

MegaSableye: “I was raised in pretty much a wholly conservative environment. Parents, although not mainland Chinese, still has Chinese (eastern) values deeply ingrained within their mindsets and beliefs. Yeah, they are still only 2 generations apart from their ancestors who are the mainlanders. On top of that, they are highly devoted Christians, sending me to Catholic schools. Anyway, a little bit of information, regarding the extreme traditions they teach (based on their conservatism), they include:

  1. Abstinence (really serious abstinence – no masturbation, no porn even). Should sexual urges arise, you go play basketball/read a book in order to divert/suppress that urge).
  2. Dating, although allowed, range as far as only studying together at the library – you should always report to each other’s parents, no kissing, not even on the cheek – don’t even hold hands, don’t even think about doing it. Go home whilst the sun hasn’t set yet.
  3. Really protectionist values towards women! When dating in a restaurant, the female should always be seated to the right of the male (so that it’s easier for the male to serve and help the female during meal). When walking together, the male should either walk beside or behind, never in front – can’t protect the female in otherwise. When talking on the phone, the male should be the first to call, and the female should be the first to hang. Otherwise, and the female would be considered as cheap, and lose in value and bargaining power.

–okay. I hope that helped.”