The Instigator
igaryoak
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Ducky
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Males are superior to females

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
igaryoak
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,742 times Debate No: 24984
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)

 

igaryoak

Pro

Resolution:
Males are superior to females

Rules:
(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.
(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate
(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.
(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.

Rounds:
(1) Acceptance
(2) Main Arguments
(3) Rebuttals
(4) Responses to rebuttal and closing arguments

Guidelines:
For the purposes of this debate, three categories will be devised to encompass the aspects of humans. Physical, Mental, and Emotional.
Physical: of or pertaining to the body
Mental: of or pertaining to the mind
Emotional: pertaining to or involving emotion
To fulfill the superiority requirement, males have to be superior to females in at least two of these three aspects.

Burden of Proof:
The burden of proof is on the pro/instigator.

By accepting this debate you accept the rules, definitions, guidelines and BOP. I hope we have fun with this debate.
Ducky

Con

I accept this argument and the rules, and put forth the following definition, as my opponent has not.

Superior: of higher rank, quality, or importance [1]

Male: a man or a boy [2]

Female: of, relating to, or being the sex that bears young or produces eggs [3]

I will await my opponent's opening arguments before posting my own. Since my opponent also hasn't specified, in order to avoid some trolling debate, we are discussing human males, and human females.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
igaryoak

Pro

I thank my opponent, Ducky, for accepting this debate.

Physical
Men are, simply put, a lot more physically adept. Men have much more testosterone than women, which makes them stronger, faster, bigger, and more resistant to injury by accelerating hair, bone, and muscle growth [1]. Almost all sports records are held by men and the simple fact that there are separate Olympics for men and women is testament to the difference in pure, physical strength. Looking at the Olympics world records, most, if not all, of the records are held by men [2].

Men also have the tendency to live healthier lives as well. Men preserve muscle and bone better, have higher pain tolerances, are subject to fewer headaches, rarely contract urinary tract and bowel problems, sleep longer and more deeply, retain brain cells longer, resist depression more often, etc [3]. Although they may not always live as long, men live healthier lives than their female counterparts.

Being stronger, faster, and tougher gives men a clear physical advantage.

Mental
Men are not only physically stronger, however, but are also mentally stronger. Men have been shown to have higher IQs than women by 3-5 points [4]. IQ, which measures potential to learn by testing for problem-solving abilities, attention retention, multi-tasking capabilities, and pattern-finding capacity, among others, is often directly correlated to one's intelligence. Taking a look at the top 15 highest IQs of all time, we find that 13 of them are men and the top four spots belong to men [5].

It is true, however, that IQ test cannot test for "different intelligences," music and art, for example. But if we take a look at history, most notable and skilled musicians, composers, artists, writers, philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, engineers, politicians, etc. have been men.

You may blame it on the fact that women have been oppressed, but this is not the case. Nowadays, women are earning math, science and engineering degrees higher than ever before [6], but yet the percentage of patents filed that belong to women are at 5.5%, hardly changed from a decade prior [7]. Even though women receive MORE education than men nowadays, women are still not making quite as many contributions and have fewer accomplishments.

Emotional
To determine emotional superiority, it is important to take a look at the six dimensions of emotional stability [8].
a. Pessimism vs. Optimism
b. Anxiety vs. Calm
c. Aggression vs. Tolerance
d. Dependence vs. Autonomy
e. Emotions vs. Logic
f. Apathy vs. Empathy

Underlined are the preferred dimensions for emotional stability.

a. Pessimism vs. Optimism
Women are twice as likely to feel depression than men [8]. Point to men.
b. Anxiety vs. Calm
Women are more likely to feel stressful in situations and report higher levels of stress when they do [9]. Point to men.
c. Aggression vs. Tolerance
Con may bring up high domestic violence rates, rape rates, or assault rates men have toward women, but those are invalid statistics. Sure, men may hit women more, but would you really fight someone bigger or stronger than you? Not in most cases. That's why the statistics are skewed. Even if a woman wanted to hit a man, the odds would be against her. If we take a look at a scenario in which the playing fields are even, such as in the case of child abuse, the truth becomes clear. In a situation in which both man (father) and woman (mother) are bigger and stronger than the victim (a child), women are more aggressive, accounting for 53.6% of abuse[10]. Point to men.
d. Dependence vs. Autonomy
To be able to quantitatively measure dependence is difficult, but I will try my best by using two statistics. Firstly (measuring dependence on partners), single fathers are less likely to request child support, take on more jobs, and get less money from partners than single mothers [11]. Secondly (measuring dependence on parents), men accept less financial help from parents after the age of 18 and give more money to parents over the course of their lives [12]. Point to men.
e. Emotions vs. Logic
Studies show that men use the right side of their brain much more and that it is often much more developed than their female counterparts. What this boils down to is men are more intuitive, spacial, and logical [13]. Point to men.
f. Apathy vs. Empathy
Research shows women are more socially constructive, more developed and listening and understanding, and have increased brain faculties for empathy [14]. Point to women.

So when the scores are tallied, it becomes 5 - 1, advantage for man.

Conclusion
Seeing as men are superior physically, mentally, and emotionally, men are superior to females.

Sources
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://records.unitarium.com...
3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
4. http://www.psychologytoday.com...
5. http://onemansblog.com...
6. http://www.usatoday.com...
7. Article: Why Don't Women Patent by the National Bureau of Economic Research
8. http://www.depression.about.com...
9. http://www.apa.org...
10. http://www.childwelfare.gov...
11. http://purplemotes.net...
12. Research Report: Do Sons or Daughters Give More Money to Parents? by Population Studies Center of the University of Michigan
13. http://www.psychologyhelp.com...
14. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Ducky

Con

I will do my best to not get to the point of semantics in the middle of this review, it will be difficult, given that physicality, mentality, and emotional health are very, very broad.

Physical:

Women are the only gender capable of giving birth. They are absolutely necessary to the continuation of any species, especially humans. If anything, I believe that this already sets the table that they are quite superior to men, but, I will continue.

Just talking about America, here, a test shows that more men are obese compared to women [1]. I had a source that stated males also suffered more in mid-life than women, but I have since lost the link, so voters should keep this in mind.

Women have shown signs of strength, and agility. Let us take, for example, the Onna Bugeisha of Japan, who used a Naginata, and sometimes, a Yumi (Long Bow), and fought alongside male samurai. [2] Also, while this can mix with mental/emotional categories, the Geisha assassins could utilize their beauty in assassinations, something that standard Shinobi/Ninja were unable to do.

Mental:

My opponent has brought out the argument of IQ, while he goes on to define this, as he then said, that isn't Intelligence overall, so that point is something he negated on his own.

And yes, women were generally oppressed. But let's take a look at some female figures that have shown excellent mental capacities:

Artemesia I of Caria [3], who not only advised Xerxes on military matters, but with her out-of-the-box thinking, she managed to trick and sink a ship in the Greek Navy, where she was then praised for bravery, and nowadays looked upon as a rather intelligent strategist. It also goes without saying that she did possess a better foresight than Xerxes.

Maria Mitchell[4], who discovered & marked co-ordinates of a comet, and was widely honored for this achievement. She also had a girl's school that taught primarily math and science.

Rosalind Franklin[5], while not being credited, is the primary reason that the structure of DNA was discovered, even with all the controversy surrounding her, there is no doubt that her work lead to a very groundbreaking scientific discovery.

And, finally, since it's too spacious to type them all out, I will provide a list of female composers. (http://www.pianoworld.com...)

There are more figures to note, of course, but it isn't truly necessary.

The "traditional gender roles" and other societal norms throughout history did in fact put females as a disadvantage for discoveries, this, however, does not prove in the slightest that men are intellectually superior.

Also, one must consider that any male or any female has the capability of accomplishing things, or being at a mental handicap. Finally, it has been shown that girls/females do get better grades than males, and for a long time, more women have graduated from college than males[6].

Your initial points are moot.

Emotional:

I will attempt to equalize some of my opponent's claims, which does go hand-in-hand with my opening argument.

Pessimism vs Optimism

Both sides still feel depression, both sides still feel hope. My opponent's very source for this also shows statistics of what brings along stress. Women have house care, children, and jobs to worry about, as well as being more tuned in to their social network, while men are stressed by jobs. This isn't a matter of mental health, a woman generally has more on her plate. Also, they react differently to stress, and that's their bodies overall, not just their minds. Moot point.

Anxiety vs Calm

Refer to my opponent's source for Pessimism vs Optimism, it's safe to say that a child, house, and job overall would produce more stress than just a job. This is all simply situational. Moot point.

Violence vs Tolerance

I feel as if I really don't need to refute this one, my opponent seems to believe that because of a single statistic, women are more violent. But overall, more violent crimes ARE committed by men, which the following statistics show, point to women: http://www.bjs.gov...

Dependence vs Autonomy

Only one of my opponent's points are linked, and this doesn't even cover all situations in which dependence vs autonomy are contested. So, really, this isn't a point to men at all, unless my opponent can produce even more examples across all ages of women being more dependent than men, or girls being more dependent than boys. More examples are needed, moot point.

Emotions vs Logic

This point I can concede, and I do agree with, however, it isn't to be said that this is an inherent trait. Men and women can equally put pride before actual rational thought. So, in the end that is a point to men.

Apathy vs Empathy

My opponent gives this point to women.

So, tallied up, it appears women are actually superior to men in this respect.

Conclusion:

My opponent claims that men are superior in all three aspects. My opponent only uses a very tunnel-visioned aspect behind everything. Women have been used in warfare, and athletic events, and still are. Both are necessary for reproduction, but women are the only ones capable of actually giving birth. Mentally, I have outlined some female figures that are either famous or less-known but still quite intelligent. Gender roles are to blame for less female figures, not inherent mental strength. Finally, my opponent has failed to show where men are actually /healthier/ emotionally, and brings up a lot of points that don't show a clear-cut superiority. Overall, neither gender is superior inherently.

[1] http://www.obesity.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.womanwarrior.co.uk...
[4] http://www.distinguishedwomen.com...
[5] http://www.sdsc.edu...
[6] http://researchnews.osu.edu...

I did put two links in the actual argument itself, as well.
Debate Round No. 2
igaryoak

Pro

Thank you, Con, for your very quick rebuttal.

Introduction
Seeing as I have the burden of proof, it is unnecessary for Con to do anything more than refute my points. Unfortunately, I do not believe that Con has satisfied this condition. He states that I use a very "tunnel-visioned" approach. However, my opponent uses specific examples to try to disprove my general, applicable facts and statistics.

Physical
My opponent does not quite address the speed, strength and health advantage of males. He instead uses specific examples such as "obesity" and "Onna Bugeisha" in an attempt to overwhelm my argument.

1. It is true that women are the only gender capable of giving birth, but men are the only gender capable of inseminating an egg. Without women, it is true that the species could not continue, but without men, the species could still not continue. Although the woman plays a bigger role in the continuation, both are necessary parts, which puts them at equal footing.

2. Con brings up an American obesity statistic. Unfortunately, this does not apply because it is America specific. I am not arguing American males are superior to American females. For the first time, my opponent uses too specific of an example. If one is to look at global statistics (I tried to find some, but was unable), it is quite possible that the results are different.

3. For the second time, Con brings up specific examples when he brings up women with "strength and agility." Such cherry-picked examples does little in discussion about such a broad and general topic.

Because my opponent's examples are not applicable to the female race as whole due to his non-representative examples, males are still physically superior to females due to their strength, speed, toughness, which have not been addressed.

Mental
Once again, my opponent uses very specific examples for his argument. But before, he disregards my IQ point.

1. Con disregards my IQ point saying that I contradict myself when in reality I do not. I bring up the importance of IQ tests as a quantitative way of comparing males and females. I also point out that IQ does not measure every type of intelligence. That does not mean IQ tests are not important. It just means that IQ is not everything.

2. Con again uses specific examples to try and undermine thousands of years of influential men. I never made the claim that all men are superior to all women. Therefore, examples of a few influential women does not help his argument. I could just as easily name influential men: Xerxes, Galileo, and Watson and Crick, all men who gave the women listed purpose. As for his list of composers, none of those are noteworthy when compared to musical geniuses such as Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart.

3. Finally, Con points out that women get higher grades, but grades have nothing to do with intelligence. Whereas IQ measures intelligence "whereas report card grades assess competencies determined more by self-control than by intelligence[1]." Grades, and college admissions, have nothing to do with mental superiority. Men are still innately more intelligent.

Because my opponent still does a lot of cherry-picking, I still feel that he has failed to negate any of my points. His first generally applicable statistic, the one about grades, has been negated.

Emotional
Con tries a wide range of tactics here to defeat most of my points, but these tactics are very weak.

1. Con makes the assertion that since both men and women get depressed, they are equal. This is very wrong. Women get depressed twice as often as men, making them much more pessimistic. Point to man.

2. Con makes the assertion that women have more things on their plate making them more stressed. This may be true, but the fact remains, if you read the source closely, that they are more susceptible to stress and have lower stress tolerances. Wherever the stress comes from, they feel more stress than a man would feel. Point to man.

3. Both Con and I make the mistake of confusing violence and aggression when, in reality, aggression can be both physical (violence) or psychological (harassment). Studies show that even though men are more often physically aggressive, women are more psychologically aggressive, even to the point where their aggression is harms oneself. The study concludes that women are overall more aggressive, although less violent [2]. Point to man.

4. Con fails to disprove my points, which still stand. Women are more likely to depend on their partner and parents than men are. I do not have to prove that men are more dependent than women in every situation, but just that women are more dependent than men, which I have attempted to show with two relevant examples. Con has failed to come up with any real reason why these two examples are not sufficient. Point to man.

5. Con has conceded this point. Point to man.

6. I have conceded this point. Point to woman.

As you can see, the standing remains at 5 to 1, in man's favor.

Conclusion
Con has provided many singular counterexamples, but unfortunately they are insignificant in this debate. I challenge him to find statistics that show how the general, average woman is superior to the general, average man. Until then, I believe that the burden of proof is met that men are superior to women, seeing as they are superior physically, mentally, and emotionally. I now turn the debate over to the Con.

Sources
1. http://www.sas.upenn.edu...
2. http://www.saylor.org...
Ducky

Con

I will now just use direct quotes from my opponent, then attempt to touch on some of the issues he feels I haven't properly addressed. I apologize to my opponent for any misunderstandings or confusion on my behalf, and I accept any point loss as a result.

1. "My opponent does not quite address the speed, strength and health advantage of males"

By providing the Onna Bugeisha, I have nullified that this is an incredible advantage. After all, if Males were just completely superior, where would females come in to warfare at all? Also, to refute the general assertion that males are overall healthier, I encourage my opponent to read this: http://www.nlm.nih.gov...

Speed and Strength are mostly out of development. I encourage my opponent to consider this pure laziness on my part, but one simply isn't faster or stronger without development. There are men faster than women, women faster than men. There are women stronger than men, men stronger than women.

2. "Con brings up an American obesity statistic. Unfortunately, this does not apply because it is America specific."

No, it is not an American Specific argument, but the burden is on you to refute this with worldwide statistics, you aren't really refuting my point, you're simply stating that because I didn't provide a worldwide example, this is null and void. I also mentioned the midlife health hit, but since I had lost my source, I accept that you didn't really acknowledge it.

3. "males are still physically superior to females due to their strength, speed, toughness, which have not been addressed."

As I stated before, this is out of development. A man and a woman who don't exercise, ever, will likely perform similarly. My opponent claims that all males are inherently tougher, stronger, and faster than all females, and therefore, they are superior.

Physique comes via development, and I have addressed health which, I feel, equalizes the two, to the point where neither are superior.

Again, I apologize if it seems I merely skimmed over it.

4 "Con disregards my IQ point saying that I contradict myself when in reality I do not."

You brought up IQ as a valid point, then turned and said that it doesn't represent 'other intelligences'. Other intelligences outnumber the few categories IQ tests. Therefore, the IQ point is moot, and it was then on me to show where females have excelled, or done equal things to men, which I felt needed specific examples, instead of a broad "Well, females have contributed, too." Which would have been completely pointless against your broad statistics regarding patents.

5 "Con again uses specific examples to try and undermine thousands of years of influential men. I never made the claim that all men are superior to all women. Therefore, examples of a few influential women does not help his argument. I could just as easily name influential men"

You have failed to acknowledge that females being confined to old gender roles does indeed lower the numbers of great females. I provided a few that "Broke the rules" of their time period, so to speak. You claim that because men, who had a societal advantage, were more numerous in achievement, that they are superior. Societal structure has everything to blame in this case, and it has nothing to do with inherent intelligence.

6 "As for his list of composers, none of those are noteworthy when compared to musical geniuses such as Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart."

That is a matter of opinion, not fact.

7 "Grades, and college admissions, have nothing to do with mental superiority. Men are still innately more intelligent."

I disagree. Grades come from many factors, such as memory, and one's ability to learn, and memorize, and finally, adapt. While not the best measure of overall intelligence, it is better than IQ tests, which cater to specific categories that my opponent has outlined. I have showed examples of women who have done noteworthy things in the fields he provided, or "Other intelligence" fields.

Overall, women being repressed throughout the course of history isn't a cause to believe they are simply less intelligent, my opponent's points are moot, and I consider this a stalemate (Neither are inherently superior.)

Mental:

This deserves its own section.

1. "Con makes the assertion that since both men and women get depressed, they are equal. This is very wrong. Women get depressed twice as often as men, making them much more pessimistic. Point to man."

My opponent changes what his original point stated, that women are twice as LIKELY to get depressed, this doesn't mean that if there is 100 depressed men, there has to be two hundred depressed women. He uses a cheap word change to imply that there is a 1:2 depression ratio (Male to Female). This point is moot.

2. My opponent provides an aggression study, that is not a near-current study, and cannot be used as fact.

I'd also like to note that upon proper refutation, my opponent used semantics (The very same thing he forbade), to change the rules mid-debate. The point still stands that men are more violent, which was the initial point I had to refute.

Point to women.

3. "I do not have to prove that men are more dependent than women in every situation"

Which is not what I meant to imply, but it feels like, what my opponent accused me of, cherry picking. By using only two examples on a very similar basis (economical), my opponent has failed to show that overall, men are more dependent. The equivalent to this would be to say that since a certain soft drink is preferred by a single age group, that it is the best soft drink overall. I don't need to refute this as long as my opponent can not meet the burden of proof. I challenge my opponent to show different varieties of statistical dependence, I feel it cannot be used as evidence otherwise.

4. "As you can see, the standing remains at 5 to 1, in man's favor."

This has been properly discussed, and is refuted. Women are still at a stalemate, if not slightly superior, to men in emotional health.

Opponent's conclusion

"Con has provided many singular counterexamples, but unfortunately they are insignificant in this debate."

I disagree. I didn't need to provide a lot, but I only needed to show that women have been superior, or on-par, with men. By providing a few examples, I have showed this.

"I challenge him to find statistics that show how the general, average woman is superior to the general, average man."

I did this with the grades point, while my opponent believes that this isn't a proper measure, but has truly failed to explain why. So, since I have used averages, according to the line quoted above, have I not refuted successfully that women are on par or slightly superior to men?

Conclusion:

I have still done my job. I have, at the very least, refuted men being inherently superior physically, since what my opponent mentions are mostly refined out of concerted development. Mentally, my opponent only uses one quote to attempt and refute my claims. Grades, while largely irrelevent, do also come from exams, which tests one's memory, and one's ability to adapt and utilize learned items. This is a general statistic, which my opponent requested.

By cherry picking and giving specifics, I feel I have shown that men are credited more discoveries, cultural pieces, etc. Only due to social conditions, and not some automatic, gender-specific ability.

Finally, my opponent has changed rules, and used semantics, in order to mold more arguments in to his favor. I thank Pro for the debate so far, and now hand the floor back over.
Debate Round No. 3
igaryoak

Pro

Thank you Con, for this great debate. I cannot wait for your final argument.

My opponent still does not understand the dangers of providing specific examples. I will now attempt to show him just how faulty the logic is. Let's say that I were to make the statement: "Fish are more wet than cars." If Con were to provide examples of that one guy who drove his car into the ocean and that one lady who drove into a lake, and expected that to suffice as evidence that cars can be as wet or even more wet than fish, it would be absolutely ridiculous because those are extreme examples that do not properly represent their group. Similarly, by using extreme, specifc examples, such as the Onna Bugeisha, Con is doing just this.

Physical
1. This is covered by my above specificity examples.

2. Con claims that his statistic is not American-specific, but he states himself that it is with the statement: "Just talking about America, here, a test shows that more men are obese compared to women." However, I did end up finding that women are, on average, more obese than men [1]. Even though my opponent has to cherry-pick illnesses that men are more susceptible to, seeing as men are more resilient to diseases and conditions, he failed to find one so far. Introducing any in the final round of debate would be unfair, seeing as I cannot rebut it.

3. My opponent makes the outlandish claim that "a man and a woman who don't exercise, ever, will likely perform similarly." This statement is completely untrue because men still have more testosterone than females, making them innately stronger, not through training, but rather through normal growth and development [2].

Because males are stronger, faster and more resistant than females genetically, and not necessarily through conditioning, they are physically superior to females.

Mental
Con's case in mental still lacks much more than specific, cherry-picked examples I discussed earlier. Still I will go through each of his points.

4. IQ is definitely not moot. Although it cannot test for EVERY kind of intelligence, IQ does test for a lot of things, all of which make one a "more intelligent person." These things include spatial, mathematical, language and memory (important as it disproves Con's grade point) ability. [3]. All of which are important. As for bringing up specific examples, refer to my opening argument.

5. My opponent makes the assertion that gender roles did "lower the numbers of great females." However, I refuted this point in my first argument with my patents statistics. These days, women are no longer confined or, at the very least, confined MUCH less than a few decades ago. It is true that women are receiving much more college education than a few decades ago. It is true that women are becoming mathematicians, scientists, and engineers much more often than a few decades ago. And if women were brought up to the same or, at the very least , very similar societal standing, why have their patent numbers and mathematical, scientific, and engineering accomplishments not risen with their societal standing [4]? If their oppression is really to blame for their lack of contributions, why haven't the contributions risen with their societal liberties?

6. If the Con would take a look at this list explaining the top 15 greatest and most famous composers of all time [5], he'd notice Beethoven, Bach and Mozart make the list as the top three. The rest of the list is comprised completely of males. Of all the things to challenge in my debate, even winning this contention would not serve a great purpose.

7. Con claims that I make opinionated statements, yet he draws a significant psychological and mental conclusion without using any sources. Unless he can provide evidence for his claims or reveal to us that he is indeed an expert himself, I believe his claim is moot. I have tried to find evidence that grades are more indicative of intelligence and cognition than IQ tests, but failed to find any. I challenge Con to put money where his mouth is.

Con sums up his argument with a statement that I have hereby reaffirmed. Hopefully, Con will understand and maybe even refute my patent / contributions argument before he claims that society is to blame. I rest my case with the fact that since males are born with higher IQs, makeup experts in practically every field and have made substantially more contributions to all areas than women then and now, they are inherently mentally superior.

Emotional
Con's debates are very expansive in this section. I will discuss them one by one.

1. Con just did not read the article cited on this one. It specifically states that "the lifetime risk of major depression in women is about 20% to 26%, compared to about 8% to 12% for men." And in case Con decides to attack the word "major," major depression occurs to clinical, chronic depression not triggered by traumatic experiences. There is clearly a 2:1 ratio. Point to men.

2. I apologize to Con for using an outdated source. Here is a newer source published in 2006 that says the same thing [6]. I do not, however, believe I used semantics. After reading my opponent's source, I realized that we were both approaching the situation from the wrong angle. Women do not express their aggression with violence, but rather harassment. Therefore, it's illogical to look at it just from a violent standpoint. Point to men (because women are still more aggressive). Point to men.

3. I have shown that women are more dependent on two different groups, parents and partners. Both are economical, but in this time and age, dependence is measured economically. If one has money, one can get whatever they need. It is unnecessary to show dependence with anything more than money because money can get one anything. However, just for kicks, I will say women have a stronger dependence on drugs. Women are twice as likely to get addicted to them [7]. I hope that helps, but I really should not need anything more than financial dependence. Point to men.

4. Con has challenged only three of my points. Two remain uncontested, but all, with the exception of apathy vs. empathy, are still in my favor, keeping the count at 5 : 1, in man's favor. Seeing as men generally are more emotionally stable, they are emotionally superior to females.

Conclusion
Con insists that a few extreme examples is more than enough to defeat my entire debate, but this is wrong. What he has shown is that a few outstanding females have been on par with a few males. Unfortunately, he still has failed to show or at least to tarnish my argument that males are superior to females. This general statement cannot be supported or opposed by specific examples, but rather large, encompassing statistics.
I ask that Con try using more such statistics, but at the same time to refrain from adding in new arguments as part of his closing.

Simply because males are superior physically, mentally and emotionally innately and genetically, males are superior to females.

Finally, I ask the audience to vote for Pro only after reading the entire debate and to not base their votes on preexisting biases. Remember, Pro does not have to successfully win all three points, but rather at least two of the three.
Thank you for reading. I know hand it off to the Con.

Sources
1. http://whqlibdoc.who.int...(part1).pdf
2. http://www.news-medical.net...
3. http://science.howstuffworks.com...
4. Article: Why Don't Women Patent by the National Bureau of Economic Research
5. http://listverse.com...
6. http://www.melissainstitute.org...
7. http://www.livescience.com...
Ducky

Con

Due to my lack of time (I will not use this as an excuse to plea for points), my closing points will not be as long, I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate, and apologize, in advance, for a disappointing closer. I encourage, in advance, for all voters to give Pro points in sources.

I will not provide new sources, and attempt to not provide new arguments since my opponent would not be able to refute them in the actual debate itself.

Physical:

I'll give this one to you, again, simply due to a lack of time to research this.

Mental:

"IQ is definitely not moot. Although it cannot test for EVERY kind of intelligence, IQ does test for a lot of things, all of which make one a "more intelligent person." These things include spatial, mathematical, language and memory (important as it disproves Con's grade point) ability."

Using IQ tests as a justified basis that men are innately superior to women is indeed ludicrous and moot. And while it does indeed test what was provided, my opponent provided nothing but a biased source to define grades. I stand by my arguments, as well, that grades to show that the average woman is more intelligent.

"My opponent makes the assertion that gender roles did "lower the numbers of great females." However, I refuted this point in my first argument with my patents statistics. These days, women are no longer confined or, at the very least, confined MUCH less than a few decades ago."

One thing my opponent doesn't seem to grasp about this argument is that we have been discussing men and women over the course of history. Women have been subject to societal disadvantages for a long time, and it is, compared to the thousands of years of gender bias, very recent that they've gotten equal rights at all. And again, I have shown examples of women being intellectually superior to men, which only backs up the research point about superior grades, college admissions, and graduation rates. This shows that, if anything, women are inherently more intelligent overall.

"why have their patent numbers and mathematical, scientific, and engineering accomplishments not risen with their societal standing?"

Research takes time, coming up with things takes time. Patents are not a solid ground to base intelligence on. There are things that come a long way, and then drop. If anything, patents are one of the worst examples to prove intelligence.

"I have tried to find evidence that grades are more indicative of intelligence and cognition than IQ tests, but failed to find any."

My not using a source is better than using a biased definition, in fact, they both serve the same amount of usefulness.

A single study hardly acts as proof, my opponent has based his entire argument around IQ tests, which do not prove anything about every other uninvolved field of intelligence. The other intelligences are not proven superior, and they are more numerous than what IQ tests cover. For this reason, my opponent has not successfully proven, with hard study, that men are overall more intelligent than women. Not every field of intelligence was proven by my opponent's sources. The other intelligences were covered by my opponent with the simple "More noteworthy men", social standards for women refute this, and therefore, the burden of proof was not met.

Emotional

"There is clearly a 2:1 ratio. Point to men."

This is not backed up with numeric statistics, Pro still hasn't proven a thing here.

"I do not, however, believe I used semantics. After reading my opponent's source, I realized that we were both approaching the situation from the wrong angle."

Pro, the category in which both of us were required, by your structure, to prove/refute was titled "Violence vs Tolerance". Pro used a single violent crime, when I turned back with evidence stating that most violent (The title word, folks!) crimes were committed by men, Pro changed the rules in his favor. This is in poor conduct, and in violation of his own rules. We discussed violence, not both forms of aggression. If my opponent wishes to provide a statistic for a violent crime, that is what's being discussed. The point still goes to women for being less violent.

(Dependence argument)

http://www.usatoday.com...

"Findings show men are more interested in love, marriage and children than their peers in earlier times; women want more independence in their relationships than their mothers did"

This isn't meant to be a new argument entirely, as it isn't something that can be refuted (Numbers, not opinion)

It's a tie at best.

"Con has challenged only three of my points. Two remain uncontested, but all, with the exception of apathy vs. empathy, are still in my favor"

Refuted or negated.

Conclusion

I have indeed posted statistics to show that women are more or equally intelligent to men, my opponent's 'mental' category completely rides on IQ tests and patents, neither of which can encompass overall intelligence, and since both of us wound up just using specific names, my opponent has not met his burden of proof. Emotionally, my opponent twisted his own words without backing up that there are two times more depressed women than men (Are and likely to become are two different statements). He also changed from Violence to Aggression as a cheap, rule-breaking tactic. It seems that my statistics are simply shot down by "No, that doesn't count" (Without reason other than a biased quote) or "Well, sure, but now let's look at a completely different, and irrelevant side"

While my opponent does have sources over me, I felt that I have prevented him from matching the burden on two out of three of the subjects, which does not make men, overall superior, to women. Very specific arguments are all he has for mental, while failing to meet every intelligence outside. My opponent fails to realize that there being a larger amount of great men is simply due to societal standards and gender oppression, not because women are just less intelligent by comparison.

To sum it up, my opponent met the physical BOP, but not mental or emotional.

I thank my opponent for the debate, and all the voters for reading.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ducky 4 years ago
Ducky
Thanks for the tips, I'm rather new to formal debating, so all advice is helpful overall. Really, while my arguments were flawed, I felt my opponent had not met his BOP, which is, I guess, why I didn't offer more coverage. Thanks again for the tips! :)
Posted by buckIPDA 4 years ago
buckIPDA
This debate wasn't as good as I had hoped it would be. Both Pro and Con utilize skewed arguments and biased evidence; that's not conducive to constructive dialogue.
I give the vote to Pro because Con flat out rejects Pro's arguments and calls them moot points, whereas Pro does a decent job of upholding his arguments as a whole. Con also drops a lot throughout the rebuttals and their organization as a whole is poor.

Pro-
Make sure you don't give your opponent ground that you don't have to. In our constructive arguments there's no reason for you to falsify potential arguments concerning aggression. Let your opponent make that argument then cover it.

Also be mindful of your sources. Although I'm sure most people would agree that Wikipedia is a valid source, it isn't acceptable for an academic debate.

Great use of framework.

Con-
Your biggest mistake was blindly accepting your opponent's framework. You could have easily set up a different standard for superiority, or even have interpreted Pro's standard differently. Also, don't rely on single examples of people to prove your point. Proving that there have been great women in the course of history doesn't prove women are greater any more than the fact that there have been great men proves that men are better.

Another huge flaw in your arguments was your picking and choosing what arguments you defended and which ones you didn't. You need to make a more comprehensive rebuttal, no matter how much content your opponent offers.
Posted by Ducky 4 years ago
Ducky
So he did. Which would make sense as to why he had prepared for this well in advance, I will admit that my opponent has racked up a lot of sources, though quite a few aren't reliable. A good debate all around.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Homie got wrecked before: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Ducky 4 years ago
Ducky
Haha, I hadn't noticed when I accepted, but DAMN the voting period is loooong.
Posted by kingwill 4 years ago
kingwill
i would love to accept, but i'm leaving the country for a week tomorrow and will have no wifi :(

basically, i would argue that males are not superior because females and males are equal in each of the 3 categories.

fyi i'm male :P
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
igaryoakDuckyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I don't believe for a minute that men are superior to women (I find my keys much more quickly with female help), Pro almost convinced me. I think Con did rebut his arguments about IQ but could have done it with more persuasive force and a better use of sources. Con missed out in giving more examples where women generally hold the edge over men. Yes I am being facetious with the keys example.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
igaryoakDuckyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The sad part is royalpaladin isn't even here. Then we'd get to see if only religious people actually votebomb.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
igaryoakDuckyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used many good statistics and sources to back up his claims. Con tried to refute Pro but was largely unsuccessful.
Vote Placed by mongeese 4 years ago
mongeese
igaryoakDuckyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a much better grasp on arguments from statistics, explaining why cherry-picking examples is flawed. Con made many arguments in the last round, and they were rather poor. It was Con who originally substituted violence for aggression; the trait is actually called aggression. Overall, Pro wins. Good job!
Vote Placed by buckIPDA 4 years ago
buckIPDA
igaryoakDuckyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by ravenwaen 4 years ago
ravenwaen
igaryoakDuckyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Con really should have pushed the point about thousands of years of oppression creating bad circumstances for women. Pro should've used standards of superiority that weren't so subject to that concern.