Info Slide: The pink tax refers to the tendency for products marketed specifically

toward women to be more expensive than those marketed toward men.

Motion: This House Would heavily fine companies for the imposition of 'pink tax'

INDO PACIFIC R3

We dont want companies to exploit their perverse incentives under the guise of literally catch up
men with the flat price measurings.
Company incentives are terrible, but u make them WORSE when u put an additional burden
onto these companies to just MATCH AGAINST men’s price.

3 things
1.​ Setup
2.​ Responses
3.​ 2 substantives

Set-up:
2 questions

1.​ Why does pink tax happen / what are the intentions of these companies?
a.​ Side government’s case functions under the assumptions that pink tax exists
because companies are sexist / see women to be more vulnerable or gullible.
i.​ Prices have been driven down over fierce competition in womens’ product
sectors such as makeup and clothing→ this characterization is
comparatively more convincing than government’s shallow
characterization that companies are greedy → greedy companies are
boxed out of the market in competitive sectors and will not make money.
b.​ INSTEAD → we would rather argue that pink tax exists partially because the
production of womens products is more expensive, and because there is a
demand for higher quality products.
i.​ → necessarily, companies are producing products oftentimes at a LOSS
and cannot afford to be fined further without compromising quality and
integrity. Judge, do not let proposition convince you that all companies are
evil or sexist → this is a dangerous generalization.

2.​ What is our counterfactual? - 2 things

a.​ Women can buy from men’s section for products that are nearly the same:
i.​ Under side government’s characterization, products from the men’s
section and women’s section are incredibly similar.
1.​ → the reason that shame doesn’t stop women from going to the
men’s section, is because most women want to save money
especially if the prices are so blatantly unfair and products are so
 similar → this is why women buy from the men's section in
clothing stores.
b.​ What we propose in this case: GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR FEMININE
ITEMS: This is likely to look like two things:
i.​ Companies would charge less for womens’ items → in return consumers
are able to buy female products for lower prices.
ii.​ BUT IN RESPONSE: government would pay the additional money that
consumers are not paying for in the form of company aid → this money
goes directly to companies which will allow them to produce similar quality
products to SQ.

Direct Responses:

I think their first speech is irrelevant in this debate, the moment they present wonderful
characterization of women in which we are NEVER AGAINST of

We completely agree with their entire push that there are structural barriers and norms
against women – in fact that is what we are agreeing SO MUCH about
a.​ But the actual question that this debate is requiring, is not whether or not they
are discriminate, but about SHOULD companies ACT IN A FOREFRONT OF
CONSUMERS to ARITIFICIALLY change the choices of women
b.​ SO, systematic charging CAN be bad, but we say that they are WORSE when
companies are FORCED to pay money against the stereotypes that they have
not constructed

SO, systematic and evil pricing is not even intentional; it is merely following the WILLS of
women to seek for QUALITY products, in which u CANNOT properly assess and react to
them either on prop.

Sub #1: Why is penalization unjustified in nature

4 questions:
1.​ When are companies penalized for their actions
a.​ Government can only penalize the company when they have an active and
malicious intention to harm either an individual or the society (ex) Tax evasion,
embezzlement, active promotion of racism…
i.​ market dynamics should operate freely, with minimal government
interference, as long as businesses follow lawful practices and uphold
ethical standards.
ii.​ Often excessive intervention may lead to a chilling effect, where
companies fear taking innovative risks, slowing down economic growth.
b.​ It is a governmental BREACH to intervene the market when a problem not
directly infringing upon law or ethics
i.​ Government should acknowledge the ethical boundaries that distinguish
between intentional and unintentional harm that corporations encounter
and provide a logical solution not simply penalize the company
 2.​ What is the root cause of pink tax
a.​ pricing disparities stem from differentiated demand, consumer preferences,
and product variations—all of which play key roles beyond simple price
inflation.
b.​ Meaning to say, The pink tax is often influenced by factors like production
costs, marketing, and demand elasticity rather than intentional price gouging.
i.​ I.e. Products marketed to women frequently undergo more rigorous
testing, contain specific ingredients for sensitive skin, or have
additional packaging that costs more to produce.
ii.​ NOTE that this is STEMMING from the INSTRINSIC STEREOTYPES
and DIFFERENT DEMANDS from each gender; that you CANNOT fix
on either side

3.​ Why does pink tax does not go through the threshold of penalization
a.​ Pink tax is NOT an intentional discrimination that corporations create
i.​ Thereby, penalizing them for simply matching the demand of certain
population and that being expensive is not justified
b.​ EVEN IF it is an intentional discrimination, this is a NATURAL RESPONSE
against GROWING DEMANDS that COMPANIES ARE INCAPABLE OF
CONTROLLING.
i.​ Note that companies are always ACTING AFTER

4.​ This is why our alternative of governmental funding is better alternative

a.​ Companies are incompetent at facilitating change within society, bc they
are REACTIVE at best
i.​ Consumers have the abundance of choice and options from MULTITUDE
OF COMPANIES, but COMPANIES DONT. They HAVE to adhere to the
wants of consumers to sell their products and make profit.
ii.​ SO → From the very NATURE OF COMPANY, they are REACTIVE.
Meaning that asking for companies to lead a social change itself is not
within their capacity, bc the ONLY Change that prop wants HAPPENS,
when consumers have absolutely no choice but to buy this product
b.​ Government is the responsible and competent actor
i.​ It is uniquely the government that has LESS LIMITED CAPACITY,
PRIORITIZED INCENTIVES TO DIRECTLY CATER TO THE CITIZENS
ii.​ So, the burden of prop is to ACTIVELY COMPARE the government and
corporate incentives

Sub #2: Why is pink tax BAD for consumers

3 questions:
1.​ What is the incentive structure of companies
 a.​ The problematic nature of pink tax, is that they are ALWAYS COMPARATIVE.
They always COMPARE the COST Between men and women without
OBJECTIVELY ASSESSING the overpriced problems
i.​ Meaning to say, as prop conceded, the ONLY GOAL that U want to
achieve is making sure that the prices are EQUAL, but not objectively
lower.
ii.​ So IN SO FAR as companies with incredibly profit driven model finds a
loophole, they can EASILY get away with them

2.​ Why does this harm the consumers, and why are they bad
a.​ (1) When companies face heavy fines, they are likely to recoup their losses by
raising prices across their products, especially if they rely on specific pricing
structures to remain competitive.
i.​ This would mean that, rather than helping women, these fines would lead
to higher prices across the board. The women who previously felt the
burden of the pink tax would now face an additional economic penalty due
to the fines imposed on companies.
ii.​ I.e. If a brand of women’s razors incurs a heavy fine for gendered pricing,
the company could respond by raising prices on both “women’s” and
“men’s” products to offset these fines, effectively spreading the cost
across all consumers.
b.​ (2) To avoid fines, companies would choose to just cut back on products
specifically marketed toward women altogether.
i.​ This could lead to a decrease in products tailored to specific female
needs and preferences, resulting in a one-size-fits-all market where
fewer options exist for female consumers, or EVEN AT WORST u just
DECREASE the QUALITY of the products

3.​ At the end, why is this arg impt

a.​ The burden for proposition to win this debate, is not to prove that this policy will
WORK → in fact, u need to STRUCTURALLY explain WHY does this CHANGE
the incentive STRUCTURE of company to ACTIVELY increase access
b.​ We more than recognize that company incentives are TERRIBLE. But u make
this WORSE, when this tax ALLOWS the companies to conveniently get away
with these policies
<SECOND SPEECH>
Intro: PROP does a fantastic job at explaining that pink tax is bad. In my speech, I’ll prove to
you why targeting big comps with fines is INEFFECTIVE.
Three things in my speech. First, clarifications + responses. Second, rebuilding. Third, third
substantive on why fines are an ineffective solution.

Strategic Observations:
1.​ Win condition: Whilst PROP describes what pink tax is and we agree that it is harmful,
note that this debate is about what is the best strategy to ensure companies are better at
preventing that, and ensuring that we minimize discriminations
a.​ If you vibe check their case, note that all of PROP’s substantives are
NON-CONTENTIOUS.
b.​ the actual question that this debate is requiring, is not whether or not they are
discriminate, but about SHOULD companies ACT IN A FOREFRONT OF
CONSUMERS to ARITIFICIALLY change the choices of women

2.​ This debate happens within an already inherently patriarchal society. That is to say that
the existing norms that this debate happens within are ones that are unfortunately
patriarchal, as we can see in SQ. For example, women are forced by societal norms to
wear and buy more makeup, and they are expected to like and wear more feminine
clothes.
a.​ That is to say that a lot of these issues that result in pink tax happening is a
problem of supply and demand, the fact that patriarchal narratives force women
to become people who just wanna buy more makeup and more feminine looking
products. We think that the solution isn’t to force companies to change, that is
problem solution mismatch.
b.​ Their entire case relied on the assumption that it was the fault of these
companies, that they have active malicious intents when doing pink tax.
i.​ SHORT TERM SOLUTION → further there are measures like online
shopping / shipping from stores that allow women to avoid shame.
ii.​ But also, THE REASON, INSTEAD, THAT WOMEN OFTEN DON’T
SHOP IN MENS SECTION IS THAT products are necessarily different
between men and women → like skincare, haircare, makeup, etc

Direct Responses:
Because their case is (1) merely non-contentious, and (2) based on flimsy assumptions, I will
just go one by one and take them down in line by line.

1.​ When they say that “companies intentionally incline the prices, bc these products
are merely the same” - 2 responses
a.​ (1) this is factually untrue. pricing disparities stem from differentiated demand,
consumer preferences, and product variations—all of which play key roles
beyond simple price inflation.
 i.​ Meaning to say, The pink tax is often influenced by factors like
production costs, marketing, and demand elasticity rather than
intentional price gouging.
ii.​ I.e. Products marketed to women frequently undergo more rigorous
testing, contain specific ingredients for sensitive skin, or have
additional packaging that costs more to produce.
b.​ (2) EVEN IF this is true, this is literally based on the NATURAL market demands
and trends of women, in which they HAVE agreed upon
i.​ EVEN IF we entirely lose on EVERY SINGLE aspect of this substantive,
COMPARE their case to our counterfactual on GOVERNMENT
SUPPORTS
1.​ What we propose in this case: GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR
FEMININE ITEMS: This is likely to look like two things:
a.​ Companies would charge less for womens’ items → in
return consumers are able to buy female products for lower
prices.
b.​ BUT IN RESPONSE: government would pay the additional
money that consumers are not paying for in the form of
company aid → this money goes directly to companies
which will allow them to produce similar quality products to
SQ.
2.​ NOTICE HOW there are NO RESPONSES NOR ENGAGEMENT
TO THIS RESPONSE

2.​ When they say that “men are already used to cheaper products, so raising price for all
genders wont work”
a.​ Judge, I want u to clearly take note of this claim bc this is one of the most
DANGEROUS claims in this debate - they say that men won’t buy these
products bc the products would suddenly be higher, but women WONT if
the prices get less
b.​ this is a LARGE TENSION in their case — bc they are applying DOUBLE
STANDARD against men and women
i.​ IF this is true, you should not make ANY changes in prices or u shud
just GO AGAINST the GOVERNMENT-INSTITUTED price changes
that THEY also want to defend
ii.​ They cannot have both, we would instead argue that IF that is the
case, YOU SHUD NOT CREDIT their SUBSTANTIVE EVEN at the
highest ground

3.​ Callout: side government cannot be the ones to assess the quality of products that are
being launched into the marketplace: pink tax compares womens’ products to mens’
products IN GENERAL – most products are different from an inherent level which is to
say that quality can only be judged by consumers.
 a.​ Therefore, it is further unjustifiable for side government to narrow the scope of
this debate to COMPLETELY symmetrical products→ there are SO LITTLE
PRODUCTS that are completely and entirely the same.
b.​ Side government cannot just use this shallow response to not engage with our
framing of this debate.
4.​ BUT FURTHER, if we engage with their framing: our counterfactual is still BETTER
because:
a.​ Pink tax will cause companies to make lower quality products → if companies are
so sexist and misogynistic as they say, then companies will not want to act on a
loss of profit and will cut quality to create MORE profit.
b.​ In this case, it would be more beneficial for women if the government would
support them further instead of expecting companies to change.

Third substantive: Ineffective for creating social change

Premise: Creating the strategy of negative monetary incentives for big comps is not effective
and disproportionately harms small comps who cannot change.
1.​ Analysis 1: Ineffective
a.​ I think most of us can agree that the companies who impact pink tax and affect
the most people are big corporations, as in the ones who have the most $$. That
is why fines are so ineffective…
b.​ Larger corporations can absorb the costs of fines or invest in rebranding to avoid
them, but small and niche businesses would be disproportionately affected.
i.​ Government cannot have as much influence over large MNCs as they are
simply mega companies with large political and monetary capital.
1.​ Often, companies are large enough to be able to lobby the
government into policies that necessarily benefit themselves more
than other companies. Governments do not want to clash with
major corporations BECAUSE they provide so much economic
development to workers and to the overall economy.
2.​ Even if they can impose tax, it is NOT going to impact the large
MNCs. MNCs are able to take fines because they are VERY
stable (ex. They can take out loans)
c.​ Small businesses WILL BE FINED WHATEVER THEY DO: that is to say:
i.​ We prove to you in Ethan’s speech that Pink Tax is a discriminatory,
unjustifiable action but is a result of factors that are justifiable → there is
more demand for HIGHER QUALITY women’s products.
ii.​ Small companies cannot cut their prices because they rely on immediate
funding to stay alive and not go bankrupt, economies of scale makes it
easier for bigger corps to cut costs whilst small comps cannot capitalize
off of that.
1.​ → FURTHER, they do not have the access to cheap labor and
mega factories that bigger MNCS have access to.
d.​ Then further, small businesses will be driven out of the market on PROP.
 i.​ For small businesses that create specialized products for women, heavy
fines could drive them out of the market altogether, leading to fewer small
business alternatives in women-specific markets.
e.​ Why is this impt?
i.​ If small companies are driven out of women’s products sectors, then there
is little capacity for improvements or novel ideas to enter the marketplace
(both physical and of ideas) → just because a company doesn’t have a
ii.​ Small companies are DISPROPORTIONATELY harmed.
2.​ Impact 2: More progressive company changes are less likely on PROP
a.​ PROP side, as a result of these heavy tax impositions, creates the social
narrative that frames the social perception to be that these companies are the
causors of such discrimination and creates the narrative that puts a lot of people
against said companies.
b.​ Why is this impt?
i.​ Because it creates that narrative that it is the fault of these companies
that gender based discrimination regarding money occurs. That is to say
that the limited focus and attention that we have on these issues.
In this argument, we tell you why (1) it’s not effective because big comps won’t change
anyways, (2) even if it harms big comps, it doesn’t matter bcuz it’s harder for it to change.

So proud to oppose.
WHIP
Intro: This debate is not about whether pink tax is a problem or not: it is simply agreed that pink
tax is bad in terms of reinforcing certain gender norms. THis is why the past 3 speeches of
PROP does not contribute to any part of the debate as they even fail to understand the motion.
We say that this debate is about
a.​ Rights and responsibilities of the cooperation: Are companies actually responsible?
b.​ How can we effectively solve the problem: what is the most effective method?

Direct refutations:
Clarification of what is The most classic example of pink tax is skirt being more expensive
discrimination and than pants. Though skirts and pants are not necessarily the same
pink tax products, they are COMPARABLE even through their differences.

Do you think that this is exactly the same with different colors? Men
and women products are inherently different and we simply don't get
why if the quality is same the women would choose the blue color?
Like is there a stereotype to womens using blue? Womens are
rational human beings and can compare the pros and cons when
buying a product. They don't chase for everything pink. Note this, the
derogatory claim here is PROP’s personal stereotype being injected.

Let's be extremely charitable and say that exactly the same products
are priced differently because one is pink and one is blue as the
PROP proposed.
a.​ The scale of debate is extremely narrowed, decreasing the
impact for the PROP side too. Vast majority of the companies
are not that dumb to be delusional enough to think that
womens would pay 5 more dollars because it is pink.
b.​ Even in this case, OPP policies are way more effective
because again,
i.​ MNCs would not react to fines
ii.​ Products would still be somewhat expensive

NOTE. that the PROP case only makes sense in a world where
women are not a rational being and cannot even compare two most
obvious products being equal but different causes. This is NOT
LIKELY judged.

Here is the more realistic case:

Women’s products are so overpriced that it is an economic burden to
them. We say that our policy is the MOST effective to solve this
problem.
 But why is pink tax still If companies hate women as much as side affirmative claims, if we
harmful under GOV's fine these companies as a result of pink tax it is likely that the
characterization? product quality will also decrease.
●​ This is true because the government does NOT PROVE
THAT fining companies changes their attitude towards
women. Instead, we tell you that companies often hold the
same grudges against women when penalized by the
government still.
●​ THEREFORE, our harm still stands that QUALITY OF
WOMENS’ PRODUCTS WILL DECREASE under side
government’s proposal. NOTE THAT THIS WAS OUR
REALISTIC COUNTERFACTUAL, AND SIDE
GOVERNMENT SQUIRRELS RESPONDING TO THIS.

●​ BUT FURTHER: THIRD GOV DOES NOT ENGAGE WITH

EIN’S EXTENSION: FINES ARE NOT EFFECTIVE WITHIN
THE CONTEXT OF THIS DEBATE BECAUSE EIN’S
SPEECH IS THE ONLY SPEECH TO ENGAGE WITH THIS
ISSUE.

Contradiction Expensive better

Cherry picking

Clash 1: Responsibility of Government VS Company

Actors only need to be responsible where they have a clear “fault” in the situation. The deadlock
here was whether the company had responsibility or not.

a.​ Companies do not have the intention to be intentionally discriminatory.

 i.​ Liberal society and they need to appeal to more ppl who are arguing for women's
right
ii.​ They DO NOT have the intentions
b.​ Even if it is vague for either side to some extent, they still cannot penalize as direct
punishment is only possible when we are SURE of their harm
i.​ NOT THIS CASE
ii.​ Principally unjust
c.​ THe stereo that women have to be trendy, use good smelling shampoo or all that is
societal problem. BUT DID THEY EVER PROVE THAT THIS IS THE company’s fault?
i.​ Burden of the PROP is NOT to identify a problem bc it is given. THey have to
prove why it is solely the company’s fault that this phenomena of womens
products being

→ principally unjust

Clash 2: Practical impact to women's rights

Even in the BEST CASE NOTHING HAPPENS in urs

-​ Fine never works
-​ U never prove why it is effective
-​ U lose from that moment

They are cherry picking examples

LET'S BE CLEAR W ONE THING: both gov and opp want betterment of women’s rights.
However, with the superficial policy of the PROP, change is impossible.

Few points i want to go over:

1.​ .
2.​ Social narrative
a.​ At the point in which the company feels as though the public perception against
them is already negative, that gives it no reason to change its ways and switch to
a trend of more progressive because no matter what it seems as though the
harms that they have done in the past are so big.
b.​ Even if the first part of this substantive was untrue, that it does hurt large
corporations, that’s even more harmful because it means that it makes it
significantly harder for the company to make any changes to improve.
i.​ That is to say that at the point in which you are taking more $$ and capital
away from the company in order to achieve that change, that just makes it
significantly harder for the companies to have enough $$ to develop and
create more progressive changes. That's a criminally unstrategic solution.
REPLY:

The reason why proposition loses, is not because of their cherry picking examples and selective
responses against our worst case. The REAL reason why they acc lose, is bc of their
non-contentious case that they eventually had to fix over with contradictions alongst their case

At best, all that PROP proves is SUPPORTING our point that the economy market is such
a COMPLEX issue of multiple different factors. At that point, that means that you cannot
pinpoint a SINGLE causor of this kind of discrimination. We tell you that it is not the fault
of ONLY JUST COMPANIES. We tell you that it is a deeply rooted problem of patriarchal
norms in society and supply and demand. THEY ARE YET TO ENGAGE.

From the start of this debate, our counterfactual was VERY simple:
●​ IN THE CASE WHERE ITEM QUALITY IS THE SAME:
○​ Women can buy from the mens’ section!! If it’s true that mens and womens’
products ARE IDENTICAL, women are not DUMB – they can spot extreme price
disparities and they would SAVE their money even if there is some shame about
shopping in the men’s section.
●​ IN THE CASE WHERE ITEM QUALITY IS DIFFERENT, and this is what we ACC
defended:
○​ Governments should be the ones to correct product discrimination to the degree
that MOST COMPANIES ARE RESPONSIVE to new technologies on how to
produce products that are cheaper or more expensive AS WELL AS the
demands of customers. SO THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO
CHANGE.
○​ MORE IMPORTANTLY, we push again and again from MY FIRST OPP SPEECH
that the QUALITY of feminine items under FINING WILL DETERIORATE under
side gov’s characterization that companies are sexist and greedy.

My reply speech will be very simple.

What were the largest contributions from opposition, and WHY do they uniquely stand,
REGARDLESS of their substantives?

1.​ FIRST CONTRIBUTION) We told you, on the intrinsic PURPOSE of pink tax and
WHY is that justifiable
a.​ This is when we go back to the start of the messy characterization debate, bc
their side was incredibly uncharitable — ARE they different, and DO they require
different price inc
i.​ Just look. When u look at the gut-check level, the most common form of
pink tax is SKIRT and PANTS, which LITERALLY REQUIRES different
technologies and incentives to tackling
 b.​ Hair products for black hair are more expensive because there has been less
development on this type of hair. Skin products for teenagers with acne are more
expensive because their skin type is more sensitive.
i.​ Similarly, if women are demanding higher quality products AND there is
NO WAY to produce these products with less money → THE ONLY
THING THAT CAN HAPPEN UNDER GOVERNMENT BENCH IS THAT
THEIR PRODUCT QUALITY WILL DETERIORATE.
ii.​ SO, at the end, these are the materials that you MUST credit from
opposition:
1.​ That INTRINSICALLY, there are different INTERESTS and
WOMEN
2.​ And you cannot just pose a blanket regulation AGAINST the
NATURAL market demands. CORPORATIONS are NOT the
ones who INSTITUTE these demands, judge, you shud
instead vote on OUR counterfactual that MAKES the
governments to provide SUBSIDIES for citizens and
companies for GREATER ACCESS
iii.​ SO, even if they spend 4 minutes desperately explaining why
companies are evil

2.​ SECOND CONTRIBUTION) We told you, that EVEN IF they are justifiable,
IMPOSING A BLANKET FINE on these products is the WORST form of punishment
a.​ We say that this was a CRIMINALLY UNSTRATEGIC SOLUTION!!!
b.​ We were also incredibly charitable in this contribution, bc Even if we accept their
framing, that it’s the same products:
i.​ 1) THEN WOMEN can just buy the mens version anyways
ii.​ 2) Our THIRD SUBSTANTIVE responds to that because their policy won’t
CHANGE ANYTHING
1.​ Cuz big companies won’t change anyways, a fine doesn’t make
multi million dollar international comps wanna change.
2.​ At best, this still only targets small comps WHO CANNOT
CHANGE ANYTHING.
c.​ At the end, why should you credit this contribution from opposition?
i.​ Very simple. (1) THEIR response, is merely that ah, companies will still
get affected and get magically incentivized to COMPLETELY reform their
structures, instead of conveniently getting away,
ii.​ (2) WE HAD 2 impacts that COVERS ALL the cases that proposition had
to defined:
1.​ Either (1) companies would just entirely elevate the product cost
from ALL schemes, or ​
(2) they will just CUT OFF product budgets and DECREASE the
qualities, the moment u just INSTITUTE this FINANCIAL
BURDEN onto these corporations
So proud to oppose.