The Instigator
Dontbothertrying
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jingram994
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Men are better than women.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
Jingram994
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,316 times Debate No: 37943
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (4)

 

Dontbothertrying

Pro

I want to stress that this is a purely scientific discourse that will address the apparent differences in the male and female sex of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. This is not a sexist discussion. We are all human beings thus all equal. However for numerous biological and evolutionary concerns, the male gender is better suited to ensuring the survivability and technological advancement of the human race. We are still creatures of nature. We are not necessarily buillt to be able to do the exact same thing! Having a baby is something spectacular. A man can't have a baby even if he wants to. I in no way believe that women are not moral equals to us. I am not saying that women are not entitled to the same rights and opportunity as men.

I just want to make this clear. I plan to give a logical and well thought out argument based on scientific and historical reasoning as to why I make this claim. I am not a sexist. I am merely looking at things from a purely rational aspect.

My opponent is welcome to make what ever comments they choose and even open with an argument if they so choose in the acceptance round.

Burden of proof lies on me to assert said claim. Best of luck to my opponent and thank you for joining us. Being that this is a rather sensitive topic, as a request to my opponent and reader I ask you to consider that attempting to negate the validity of scientific research and facts with arguments based on nothing but feelings and the opponent's supposed interpretation of reality, is not a particularly sound argument. I look forward to this debate and hope we will be able to carry it out in a respectful, civil, and well thought out manner.


Jingram994

Con

First of all, I accept your debate challenge. I hope for a clean, rational debate, and wish my opponent luck in his arguments.

I accept my opponent"s debate premises being the physiological difference between men and women qualifying men as "better" in the sense of making them "better suited to the survival and technological advancement of the human race". I also accept my opponent"s shouldering of the burden of proof with regards to his argument. I concur that this debate is not related to sexism or to men and women deserving different rights or not being "morally" equal.

I will attempt to show in my arguments that, despite the physiological differences between men and women, neither gender is truly "better" than the other in such a sense as qualifying them as more suited to "ensuring our survival or technological advancement", and that both genders are instead merely "different" to one another to varying degrees.
I will further argue that, aside from certain things being literally physically impossible for one gender, for example men giving birth, both genders are quite capable of attaining the same skills and qualities as one another to allow them to excel in whichever area they choose to apply their skills.

Again, I look forward to a rational, respectful and productive debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Dontbothertrying

Pro

"I accept my opponent"s debate premises being the physiological difference between men and women qualifying men as "better" in the sense of making them 'better suited to the survival and technological advancement of the human race.'"

First off you misrepresent, through modification, my quote. I said that men are better suited to ENSURING the survivability and technological advancement of the human race. Clearly men and woman are both necesary for the actual continuation (reproduction) of the human race. Though even that is not an entirely true statement. Furthermore I never stated that men being "better suited to ensuring the survivability and technological advancement of the human race," is solely limited to the physiological difference between man and woman.

I do not believe it as proper that, as a mere term of acceptance, you can negate possible arguments to my case based on unfounded assumptions you have made from misinterpretation--and clear misrepresentation--of what I said.
Jingram994

Con

I apologize to my opponent for appearing to directly quote his text out of context as I did; I was not intending it to be a direct representation of my opponents entire argument. I stated "..making them better suited to the survival and technological advancement..." I apologize for leaving one word out of my summary. It was intended as nothing more than an 'equivalent meaning' statement, and I apologize to my opponent for appearing to misinterpret what he was stating.

As to the other issue, I also apologize for appearing to attempt to 'limit' my opponents argument to entirely biological factors.
**"However for numerous biological and evolutionary concerns, the male gender is better suited to ensuring the survivability and technological advancement of the human race."**
It was clearly a misinterpretation on my part; as my opponent was obviously using such biological differences as the main base of his argument, I assumed that this would be the majority part and main qualifier of his argument, odd as that may sound.

If my opponent is satisfied with the semantics of what we are currently debating, he may feel free to begin said debate at any time. I would like to ask my opponent to keep any further queries or objections regarding semantics or specifics of wording to the 'comments' section, rather than waste an entire round attempting to paint me as some sort of moron who cannot comprehend or put together a rational argument.

I apologize for my misinterpretation, and if my opponent feels ready to utilize the remaining rounds to put forward his arguments, he may begin doing so.
Debate Round No. 2
Dontbothertrying

Pro

"I stated "..making them better suited to the survival and technological advancement..." I apologize for leaving one word out of my summary."

This is the problem here. You attempt to make arguments based on unsound arguments. You did not simply "[leave] one word out of [your] summary." You also changed survival to survivability. There is a difference in the two, as I attempted to demonstrate in the previous reply, but that you failed to recognize due to your apparent lack of logic. By changing the word to "survival," you can simply negate possible denial of said argument under the rationale that the human race will not survive unless there is a female egg, a male sperm, that the male sperm fertilizes said egg which develops within the female womb. Thus you can not possibly argue that men play a greater role in determinng the "survival" of mankind. That is of course unless, you want me to bring into play possibilities in which we procreate by unnatural means, which are certainly possible. Regardless, I should not be placed under the restriction of having to do so because you have flawed logical thinking and can not understand anything I write. Also, you turn "biological and evolutionary concerns" into "biological differences." Again two different things here. So no, you can not, apologize for "leaving one word out of [your] summary.

"I apologize to my opponent for appearing to misinterpret what he was stating." This is the problem with your logic; you think you can assert whatever you want as true simply because you want it to be true. You think that it's not possible you ACTUALLY could have misinterpreted something because you don't believe you did. You didn't appear to misinterpret. You did misinterpret.

"**"However for numerous biological and evolutionary concerns, the male gender is better suited to ensuring the survivability and technological advancement of the human race."**" First off, that does not imply these are the ONLY reasons. I simply made the assertion that they're are in fact numerous biological and evolutionary concerns. Second, the clear fact that you think "evolutionary concerns" can not include anything other than the physiological differences between man and woman, nor anything other than a "biological difference," is also flawed in logic. So despite that you are under the impression that: "It was clearly a misinterpretation on my part; as my opponent was obviously using such biological differences as the main base of his argument, I assumed that this would be the majority part and main qualifier of his argument, odd as that may sound," you are still wrong! No, you can not possibly deduce that I am even using "biological differences" as the "majority part and main qualifier of [my] argument from reading the statement: "However for numerous biological and evolutionary concerns, the male gender is better suited to ensuring the survivability and technological advancement of the human race."

"If my opponent is satisfied with the semantics of what we are currently debating, he may feel free to begin said debate at any time. I would like to ask my opponent to keep any further queries or objections regarding semantics or specifics of wording to the 'comments' section, rather than waste an entire round attempting to paint me as some sort of moron who cannot comprehend or put together a rational argument."

To begin with, how can you assume that I am "attempting to paint [you] as some sort of moron who cannot comprehend or put together a rational argument," based on the entirety of information given to you in either the first or second round of the argument? You have no reason to assume that. I'd argue you might have some reason NOW, considering the statements I just made earlier in THIS post: "Regardless, I should not be placed under the restriction of having to do so because you have flawed logical thinking and can not understand anything I write" and "you failed to recognize due to your apparent lack of logic." You clearly did in fact not only misinterpret what I said, but then attempt to "apologize to [your] opponent for *appearing* to misinterpret what he was stating." You appear to be under the impression that after you assume some thing true, and someone attempts to present a logical reason as to why you assumed false, you can counter-argue with another ASSUMPTION that you couldn't have assumed false in the first place. What would be the point in attempting to debate you?

Not to mention this is not about semantics. This is about your thinking that, as a mere term of acceptance, you can negate possible arguments to my case based on unfounded assumptions you have made from misinterpretation--and clear misrepresentation--of what I said. I'm not going to debate something with you when you don't agree as to what we are debating; much less attempt to do so when you try to negate my arguments by misinterpreting what I said and establishing your ASSUMPTIONS as the *"opponent"s (my) debate premises."* The "premises" dictate what is and isn't up for discussion. As said so many times, you are attempting to DECIDE what MY premises are based on your misinterpretation and illogical assumptions. Not to mention the ignorance of the possibility that you could have done so to follow.

I am more than happy to debate the topic under the premises that I established; not the premises you attempt to establish by forming false and illogical assumptions as to what said premises are, and especialy not when you attempt to represent your misunderstanding of the premises AS MY premises to being with.
Jingram994

Con

Where to begin? First of all, making inferences on my potential future arguments based on a semantic point that simply does not matter, and that I stated did not matter, is ridiculous.
I stated right at the start that I was attempting to "...argue that, aside from certain things being literally physically impossible for one gender, for example men giving birth, both genders are quite capable of attaining the same skills and qualities as one another to allow them to excel in whichever area they choose to apply their skills."
My making a statement that "both genders are necessary for the reproduction of the species, therefore you're wrong" would be a pathetic fallacy with regards to the actual topic. You yourself would pick apart such a statement as though it were a fly, and I would no doubt lose votes due to my pathetic attempt to redirect and then 'win' the debate.

"However for numerous biological and evolutionary concerns, the male gender is better suited to ensuring the survivability and technological advancement of the human race." I think that makes it quite clear where your argument is coming from, and is a pretty good indicator of the types of arguments you will attempt to make. Attempting to antagonize me for a statement that *you* worded poorly is pathetic. And as if I weren't clear enough, *I apologized* and stated that it was the semantic equivalent of a slip of the tongue. Move on with the debate.

And yes, I *can* conclude that you are attempting to paint me with the idiot brush; the very first thing you proceeded to do after acceptance of the debate was pick apart the way I accepted it to try and show that either I didn't understand the concepts you were using, or that I was attempting to steer the debate into more favorable ground for myself. You could just as easily have ignored the way I worded it, seeing as I was not directly quoting you and had clearly shown that I was prepared to accept any argument you would have made, and continued making your opening arguments.

I *accepted* your debate. You stated that you would be arguing, for numerous evolutionary and biological concerns, men being better than women for ensuring the survivability and technological advancement of the human race. At what point would you like to move away from the semantics of how this is worded and actually start to debate that topic? Remember, I was the one who was advocating for taking the time to ensure the debate topic was titled such to be all-inclusive to our argument and very clear on what the debated points were. If at any point you were under the assumption that I was attempting to debate some other topic than the one you decided on and agreed to, you're mistaken.

Putting it very simply for you, at no point did I attempt to deliberately limit the points you would have been 'allowed' to make under the terms of the debate, and even if I did you would have been well within your rights to shut me up and continue with your argument regardless of such. The fact that you would rather argue the semantic of the point than the point itself leads me to conclude that you just don't have a leg to stand on. I would much rather you use the *remaining* two rounds to put forward your actual arguments for debate than continue to attempt to delay doing so by indignantly going on and on about how apparently my wording of the way I accepted the debate proves that I don't have a clue as to the real issue being debated.

We are not arguing this point any more. You will move on to making your actual points as to the issue at hand. We will keep all other talk of semantics and specific wording to the comment section, if it proves necessary. Are we clear?
Debate Round No. 3
Dontbothertrying

Pro

Look, here's what you don't get. Anything. I would love to host a live online moderated or unmoderate debate so that you can actually see how flawed your logic is, and that you won't be able to come up with any logical argument on the spot. You hide behind the keyboard with time to make up your responses, thinking that your responses mean anything significant or even address the arguments at hand. All you do is avoid and come up with bullcrap, if you engaged in a live debate with me you would see how stupid you sound. But we all know you won't do that, because you're a keyboard warrior in the first place.

Now all you're doing is reiterating the point you can't understand anything.

"Where to begin? First of all, making inferences on my potential future arguments based on a semantic point that simply does not matter, and that I stated did not matter, is ridiculous." Please tell me as to how I made an inference on your arguments. You're the one making the inferences. As I said, "I am more than happy to debate the topic under the premises that I established; not the premises you attempt to establish by forming false and illogical assumptions as to what said premises are, and especialy not when you attempt to represent your misunderstanding of the premises AS MY premises to being with." You still haven't proposed any logical argument to deny that you havn't done this, and yet you're going to throw out that I'm the one making inferences about your arguments! I've already shown how you did this. But of course you don't try to justify with logic as to why you did not actually mistake, you just ignore this completely and start throwing around crap like I'm the one making inferences about your arguments.

"I stated right at the start that I was attempting to '...argue that, aside from certain things being literally physically impossible for one gender, for example men giving birth, both genders are quite capable of attaining the same skills and qualities as one another to allow them to excel in whichever area they choose to apply their skills.'" Ok. I don't have a problem with that. You're not being specific as to "certain things being literally physically impossible for one gender, for example men giving birth." This=Biological differences. You know what else that includes? The proven sexual dimorphisms in the anatomical structure and neurochemical make up of the brain, among many others. The male brain IS NOT the same as a female brain. This is just one thing you're excluding by trying to negate the differences that exist in the first place!

But based on your flawed logic, I can't use this to support my argument because men and women are different. Do you get what you're saying? That's like trying to say you can try to argue the point that a male lion is better than a female lion, but you can't use any of the differences that are "physically impossible" for the female lion to do or be. So no, obviously I'm not going to be able to debate when you try to impose this crap.

In case you want to pull your typical nonsense, you said for the record:

"I accept my opponent"s debate premises being the PHYSIOLOGICAL difference between men and women qualifying men as "better" in the sense of making them 'better suited to the survival and technological advancement of the human race'." (Which isn't true, if you've read or paid attention to anything I've said) You also said: "aside from certain things being literally physically impossible for one gender, for example men giving birth, both genders are quite capable of attaining the same skills and qualities as one another to allow them to excel in whichever area they choose to apply their skills." My whole argument has to do with things that are "physically impossible" for one gender. It's certainly not because a man can't give birth. And being that you earlier made the unfounded assumption that; "my opponent was obviously using such biological differences as the main base of his argument, I assumed that this would be the majority part and main qualifier of his argument," why would you attempt to say that whatever biological differences there are, they don't count? Your logic says that, despite that the male brain may be fundamentally different than the female brain, its not possible that these differences account to anything significant, because you say so. That's not for you to determine sweetheart.


You think you get to impose additional requirements on the debate topic by saying well, if you ignore whatever differences exist, you can consider men and women to be equal.

I'm seriously tired of trying to explain to you what's flawed with your logic. You're just a dumb keyboard warrior with no potential to develop rational thoughts, much less do so on the spot. So I know you'll never actually accept an audio debate. You know that you're stupid. You know that all you're doing is coming up with nonsense and avoiding everything. And thats why you do it all behind the keyboard so that you can manipulate the situation. Act like you're intelligent when all you're doing is misinterpreting things, then lying about it, and then just avoiding any argument presented as to why you misinterpreted. All because you're just "right." You can't think in a rational nor logical manner. Please, entertain myself and the rest of the world by participating in a real debate. You think hiding behind your keyboard is a debate. You're not fooling anyone, atleast anyone intelligent for that mattter.


Jingram994

Con

Alright then. Since this is clearly a hard concept for you to get, I'll take it very slowly, and step-by-step.

"Please tell me as to how I made an inference on your arguments. You're the one making the inferences."
To begin, you assume that I fail to understand your argument, or that I am deliberately attempting to maneuver the debate into such a circumstance as to make it impossible for me to be wrong. Your continued asinine remarks show this *very* clearly.

" You still haven't proposed any logical argument to deny that you haven't done this.."
Uh... Are you serious? Can you even read English, sir?
**"However for numerous biological and evolutionary concerns, the male gender is better suited to ensuring the survivability and technological advancement of the human race."**
"...as my opponent was obviously using such biological differences as the main base of his argument, I assumed that this would be the majority part and main qualifier of his argument, odd as that may sound."
I directly referenced the fact that, clearly, going by what you were saying, I had accidentally misinterpreted what you were saying somehow. I directly made remarks that showed that it genuinely appeared as though that was the point you were attempting to make, and what's more *I Apologized* for doing this. What part of that do you not understand?

"..."certain things being literally physically impossible for one gender, for example men giving birth." This=Biological differences. You know what else that includes? The proven sexual dimorphisms in the anatomical structure and neurochemical make up of the brain, among many others."
No, it really doesn't. I stated 'being literally physically impossible for one gender', and further used an example to point toward the sort of issue I was discussing. Your assumption that I meant this to be closer to "physically impossible for a female to have a male brain, therefore discount it" is *ridiculous*! Hell, I even used the exact same example *you* did right at the beginning of the debate to illustrate this point:
"Having a baby is something spectacular. A man can't have a baby even if he wants to."

I *know* that the male brain is not exactly 1:1 the same as the female brain. Further, any statement by me that this is entirely irrelevant to the mental and psychological development of the genders would be nonsensical. I'm *aware* of this. That was *never* my intent or part of my argument. I *get* that male brain structure predisposes them to being better at, say, spatial relation skills. That doesn't then make it 'physically impossible' for either a male or female to use spatial relation skill. Do you see what I'm trying to say here? As the enormous majority of differences between males and females do not come down to 'physical impossibility' so much as 'one tends to be mildly-to-moderately' better, those differences simply do not fall under the purview of what I stated here. At all.

"Your logic says that, despite that the male brain may be fundamentally different than the female brain, its not possible that these differences account to anything significant, because you say so. That's not for you to determine sweetheart."

Aww, that's cute. No, it doesn't . That statement tells me nothing aside from the fact that you just haven't been listening to me at all. My logic states that the differences able to be held accountable to biological differences don't matter as much as those able to be pinpointed as 'learned' or cultural/social differences in the way those two genders are treated as they develop. This is because the mental and psychological development of *both* genders is impacted infinitely more by the environment they grew up in, and their treatment by their peers and caretakers, than by the specifics of the biological structure those environments are acting on. Assuming that said biological structure is within the healthy human norm.

"You think you get to impose additional requirements on the debate topic by saying well, if you ignore whatever differences exist, you can consider men and women to be equal."
Right, except that my previous post very clearly showed that I never intended to put 'additional requirements' on what you were allowed to use as your argument. I'm not going into detail on that again. Putting it quite simply, I only stated that we should 'ignore' 'differences' that exist for one gender only as an actual *physical impossibility*. It is *impossible* for a male to give birth. It is *impossible* for a female to be exactly as strong as the strongest possible male. It is *not impossible* for a female to be just as good at spatial relation skills as any given male. It is *not impossible* for a male to have a 'female' gender identity.
So, very simply, I never stated that they can only be 'considered equal' if we ignore all differences. I argued that they can be considered equal *despite* those differences. Which you still haven't argued for, I might add.

After that sentence, you went on to write:
"inanity"
Which I am not going to justify with a response of any kind. May I remind you that the burden of proof is on you to prove that men are better than women? Which you have *completely* ignored in a pathetic attempt to make me look like either a troll or a five year old. I've given you no less than *four* separate warnings of this, and *three* times I've stated that any appearance of my attempting to pursue a different debate to yourself is just not true. I've given you *several* opportunities to give up this ridiculous and remarkably vacuous line of dialogue and just get on with your argument. Each and every time you have ignored me entirely and continued attempting, and pathetically failed, to make me appear to be the that is to fault for the poor state of affair of the debate so far.
Debate Round No. 4
Dontbothertrying

Pro

"..."certain things being literally physically impossible for one gender, for example men giving birth." This=Biological differences. You know what else that includes? The proven sexual dimorphisms in the anatomical structure and neurochemical make up of the brain, among many others."
No, it really doesn't. I stated 'being literally physically impossible for one gender', and further used an example to point toward the sort of issue I was discussing. Your assumption that I meant this to be closer to "physically impossible for a female to have a male brain, therefore discount it" is *ridiculous*! Hell, I even used the exact same example *you* did right at the beginning of the debate to illustrate this point:
"Having a baby is something spectacular. A man can't have a baby even if he wants to."

Yes, it really does. It is physically impossible for a female to posess a brain that resembles the anatomical structure, neurochemical makeup, etc of the brain. I'm not talking about "hormones" here, I'm talking about the different ways in which we think!! This is confounded by your TERMS OF ACCEPTANCE THAT YOU HAVE STILL YET TO CHANGE. "I accept my opponent"s debate premises being the physiological difference between men and women qualifying men as "better" in the sense of making them "better suited to the survival and technological advancement of the human race". GREAT. So the only argument I can make are the physiological differences, but even many of those differences don't count.

And I wasn't using the example of a man giving birth to illustrate the point that those are the biological differences I'm discussing. All I was doing was pointing out the most clear cut obvious reasong that we MIGHT not be designed for the same purpose. Is that unreasonable?

"That doesn't then make it 'physically impossible' for either a male or female to use spatial relation skill. Do you see what I'm trying to say here? As the enormous majority of differences between males and females do not come down to 'physical impossibility' so much as 'one tends to be mildly-to-moderately' better, those differences simply do not fall under the purview of what I stated here. At all." No crap. I've already made it known to you in previous discussion that I think there are men smarter than 99% of women and there are women smarter than 99% of men. Exceptions are not what matter here. This is what you don't realize. We are comparing the "male and female sex of the species Homo sapiens sapiens." Not Sally to John. But here you go again: "As the enormous majority of differences between males and females do not come down to 'physical impossibility' so much as 'one tends to be mildly-to-moderately' better." Enormous majority? You just dont understand what you're saying. Sure, the female lion is certainly capable of taking down prey with deadly efficiency. So is the male lion. It's not a "physical impossiblity" for them to complete the action of taking down prey. But it is a physical impossibllity for an adult female lion to resemble an adult male lion whatsoever in strength, power, and simply the pure determination to kill. Do you think that the male lion is "mildly-to-moderately" better? I hear the crying and complaining already. "Well animals don't apply here! Thats just one difference!" Blah-blah-blah what you don't get is that I'm providing an analogy to demonstrate your logic pattern itself. What you're saying is that because Sally can account for small differences and develop the same mathematical and logical reasoning capacity as John, there is no significant difference across the entire male gender and female gender. While that's bullcrap to begin with, the differences are even more significant at the extreme end of the spectrum. The female brain does not posess the reasoning and logical information processing power, nor the capacity for spatial representation, that is going to be necessary at the most elite levels of science. You think a woman can be the greatest quantum physicist in the world because "she wants to be?" We're talking about the elite of the elite. This is where the "physically impossible" difference of women not having the same brain as a male shows up. It's not just about education and psychological development at this level. This is the level where even the most minute of differences (not that I'm saying they are minute) have the greatest of effects. Hell women have been doing the cooking for at least thousands of years, and yet the best chefs in the world are still MALES! Does a female not posess the same ability to cook? Hell no. So why are the best chefs in the world still males? This is what I would like to discuss in debate. I havn't even begun to discuss why this is. And when you combine the reasons for this with the reasons for man's brain naturally being better suited to excelling at the most elite level of science, how could you possibly even think that men aren't better suited to ensuring the survivability and technological advancement of mankind?


"Your logic says that, despite that the male brain may be fundamentally different than the female brain, its not possible that these differences account to anything significant, because you say so. That's not for you to determine sweetheart."

"Aww, that's cute. No, it doesn't . That statement tells me nothing aside from the fact that you just haven't been listening to me at all. My logic states that the differences able to be held accountable to biological differences don't matter as much as those able to be pinpointed as 'learned' or cultural/social differences in the way those two genders are treated as they develop. This is because the mental and psychological development of *both* genders is impacted infinitely more by the environment they grew up in, and their treatment by their peers and caretakers, than by the specifics of the biological structure those environments are acting on. Assuming that said biological structure is within the healthy human norm."

Your logic states that Sally can be just as good as John, so the OVERALL differences between the male and female gender aren't significant. And I've already mentioned to you in previous discussion how "'learned' or cultural/social differences in the way those two genders are treated as they develop," are evolutionary concerns that demonstrate a rather consistent pattern for almost 2 MILLION years. But you don't get this either. Another key point to my argument that you took out by limiting the topic to "biological differences." I tried to get this across to you in Round 2, 3, and 4.

I would be more than happy to properly debate the subject if you don't try to modify the terms of acceptance. I would be even happier to host a live online chat debate with you. Moderated if you like. If not I suggest we begin a new debate and I will attempt to put forth more clear statements and rules in the first round. I will take a look at the format others use to set the guidelines for the debate and try to model them after that. I apologize if you did not clearly understand what I said. There is an apparent dispute as to what the specifics and semantics are. I'm new to the site here and figured that we would simply debate on the terms that I put forth. Regardless, we have still yet to properly engage in debate of the subject at hand.



Jingram994

Con

Yeah, you're missing the point. At no point did I actually claim any of those things, especially not with regards to physical differences or actual brain structure variations being "out of bounds" or "absolutely not part of the topic at all". I pointed out that the actual developmental differences in the male and female brains are *easily offset* by a good education, and that those differences *in themselves* are simply not enough to qualify one as inherently better at a specific task utilizing multiple areas of the brain, many of which are entirely unaffected by this dimorphism.

I *understand* that there are in fact biological differences between males and females, many of which do affect the brain. I'm not an *idiot*. I simply disagree with your explicit assumption that this means that men therefore *must* be inherently 'better' than women for various purposes, rather than simply developmentally different, with each better able to *learn* some skills than others.

As to your "men cannot give birth" statement, you have spectacularly missed the point there, in what I can only deem an accidental Epic Fail. You were using it as an example of how the genders were "designed for different purposes". I *know* you weren't using it to state the sorts of differences you were discussing. That"s why I used it as an example of the sorts of differences that *wouldn't* be relevant to the topic. We *both* understand this. What part are you not getting?

"But it is a physical impossibllity for an adult female lion to resemble an adult male lion whatsoever in strength, power, and simply the pure determination to kill." Right, I understand where you're coming from. Remember though, that the *absolute* upper limitations of skills being higher than the other in differing areas *do not* then mean that a given female will not be as good as or better than a given male. Unless the lion we're talking about here is so physically fit as to have entirely surpassed the upper limitations of female fitness, which is unlikely at best, then it simply does not matter. I understand that the averages mean that a given male will likely be better than a given female at certain areas, and again I'm not arguing that this isn't the case. I'm arguing that such "average" values are *easily* circumvented by any amount of training or learning in those given areas. I'm not arguing for physical differences being irrelevant, I'm arguing for them being backseat to learned differences.

"The female brain does not posess the reasoning and logical information processing power, nor the capacity for spatial representation, that is going to be necessary at the most elite levels of science."
Right, umm... That's where you're... wrong? I'm sorry, but that's just not the case. Women do tend toward less spatial representation skill, and mildly reduced "logical information processing power", but this is not one of those "absolute limitations" I discussed earlier. Specifically, females have both a "thicker" parietal region, which makes spatial rotation somewhat more difficult, and the inferior-parietal lobe is slightly larger in males, which aids somewhat in mathematical skills. This is just the difference most relating to your apparent argument.

These differences, I'll admit, do lead to men often having an easier time with mathematics-related skills. This does not mean, however, that it is impossible, or even very difficult, for females to have just as much acuity and skill in those areas as any given male with the same amount of learning in that area. The actual amount of grey and white matter used for these tasks is far from set, and it is simply not true that sheer amount of processing power instantly equates to more skill in these learned areas.
For example, studies have shown that, as male brains tend to have an easier time with these skills, their brains are quite "happy" to use *only* this area of the brain directly for employing its related skills. Females, however, have been shown to use multiple related areas in order to "get more out" of what they have and employ the skill more effectively.

And please remember, despite my apparent misinterpretation of your argument, and I quote myself here:
"I directly referenced the fact that, clearly, going by what you were saying, I had accidentally misinterpreted what you were saying somehow. I directly made remarks that showed that it genuinely appeared as though that was the point you were attempting to make, and what's more *I Apologized* for doing this. What part of that do you not understand?"
Given this, you were more than within your rights to continue on with your debate and reference the fact that I had accepted *your* terms if I at any point attempted to "shift the goalposts". You have continued to refuse to do this, and have blatantly and explicitly refused to continue with your argument until such a time as I either go over an exhausting list of exactly how and why I misinterpreted your argument, or simply copy-paste your first post and write "I accept *this*". I have *accepted your debate. My *entire* second round post was literally *nothing* more than pointing out that I had accepted *your* argument and was prepared to listen to and counter your arguments within the terms *you* set. Any belief that I have somehow not done so is simply incorrect.

"Regardless, we have still yet to properly engage in debate of the subject at hand."
YOU THINK?
Round 2: "I apologize for my misinterpretation, and if my opponent feels ready to utilize the remaining rounds to put forward his arguments, he may begin doing so."
Round 3: "We are not arguing this point any more. You will move on to making your actual points as to the issue at hand. We will keep all other talk of semantics and specific wording to the comment section, if it proves necessary. Are we clear?"
Round 4: "I've stated that any appearance of my attempting to pursue a different debate to yourself is just not true. I've given you *several* opportunities to give up this ridiculous and remarkably vacuous line of dialogue and just get on with your argument."
I have given you *so many* opportunities to get on with your argument that it has simply ceased being amusing. What part of what I said did you *not* understand?

"I apologize if you did not clearly understand what I said. There is an apparent dispute as to what the specifics and semantics are." Your apology for this point is not necessary. Remember, *I* apologized for apparently misinterpreting your opening statement. I told you that I would go with whatever your argument happened to be and to just get on with it. What part of that did you not get?
Very simply, I will consider debating the actual topic with you, *at a much later date*. I understand your belief that the semantics were somehow *important* in this case, but they weren't. I stated that I would accept whatever your argument happened to be based on. You ignored me for FIVE rounds and continued trying to make me give up one my argument and accept *your* argument, which I had *already done* in the second round.

Good day sir, and to all you viewers out there, Vote Con.

1) http://science.Howstuffworks.Com...

2) http://www.Brainfitnessforlife.Com...

3) http://www.Webmd.Com...

4) http://www.Theage.Com.Au...

5) http://en.Wikipedia.Org...
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jingram994 3 years ago
Jingram994
Umm... Was that mainly a dig at him, or me?
Posted by Space_Milk 3 years ago
Space_Milk
Wow, this is why nothing gets done in politics. Even after obviously winning, though dontbothertrying was a little mean, people will retain their beliefs.
Posted by Dontbothertrying 4 years ago
Dontbothertrying
I was explaining to you how you ignore *this* argument: " ... " and then do *this,* in an attempt to explain to you your flawed logic. But once again, you ignore the argument again and take the introduction to it out of context. You just don't understand anything.
Posted by Dontbothertrying 4 years ago
Dontbothertrying
You just don't possess the intellectual capacity to follow logic whatsoever. Much less debate. That's why you won't debate me properly, much less take part in an audio debate where I can call you out immediately on all your failures in logic. Instead you want to play semantics and just take everything out of context so that you can dodge arguments. Coward keyboard warrior.
Posted by Jingram994 4 years ago
Jingram994
"This is another thing you like to do. You ignore the argument"

*"As to my equivalent meaning acceptance, as far as anyone with a brain is concerned, what I accepted was equivalent to your wording. You're just too caught up in exact semantics and paranoid fear that I will later use that against you to notice that. And recall that I *explicitly* stated that I would accept any argument you would make. I *specifically* stated that the exact wording was irrelevant as far as I was concerned. I am not *required* to copy your opening statement letter for letter in order to accept your premises, you tool."*

Me, Round 2: "I apologize to my opponent for appearing to directly quote his text out of context as I did; I was not intending it to be a direct representation of my opponents entire argument. I stated "..making them better suited to the survival and technological advancement..." I apologize for leaving one word out of my summary. It was intended as nothing more than an 'equivalent meaning' statement, and I apologize to my opponent for appearing to misinterpret what he was stating."

"As to the other issue, I also apologize for appearing to attempt to 'limit' my opponents argument to entirely biological factors."

"I apologize for my misinterpretation, and if my opponent feels ready to utilize the remaining rounds to put forward his arguments, he may begin doing so."

I *directly* apologized for appearing to have used what you stated out of context. I *directly* stated that it was not my intention to appear to be representing your entire argument with my acceptance of said argument. What are you still not getting?
Posted by Dontbothertrying 4 years ago
Dontbothertrying
This is another thing you like to do. You ignore the argument: "First you make the claim that you didn't misinterpret or negate any arguments, and that you simply 'left one word out.' Despite having clearly not done so. Then when called out you just avoid the subject and come up with more bullcrap like it was an 'equivalent wording.' You sit behind the keyboard, and you dodge the argument. Why on earth should I waste my time debating you?"

Then you just respond with your snide remarks by indicating how appalled you are that I would ask why I should waste my time since I challenged you. "I already stated that I'm not going to go over this again. why should *you* waste your time debating me? You challenged me to this debate!" Congratulations! You can sit behind your keyboard and ignore the argument while taking a small portion of it entirely out of context. This is your logic. I've told you a thousand times.

You know what else you avoided? The previous argument we were discussing! "I'm not saying it was void according to your "procedure." I'm saying that I voided that round in order to address that your change in parameters of the debate." Yet you just play this off by insisting *AGAIN* that you didn't change the parameters.

When did you "*explicitly* [state] that [you] would accept any argument [I] would make?" Round 1? Round 2? Round 3? In round 2 you did say, "If my opponent is satisfied with the semantics of what we are currently debating, he may feel free to begin said debate at any time." Surely I wasn't going to be satisfied with the semantics after you *LIED* about having simply changed one word.

For the cherry on top you suggest that "[you] specifically said well ahead of time that [you] didn't like this wording," when we'd already argued this and had to go with it because you didn't possess the logical capacity to devise a possible topic after suggesting *one* shitty one.

Coward keyboard warrior. That's all I have to say.
Posted by Jingram994 4 years ago
Jingram994
I already stated that I'm not going to go over this again. why should *you* waste your time debating me? You challenged me to this debate! I specifically said well ahead of time that I didn't like this wording, and that we should take time to ensure that the wording was such that it was very clear what the debate was about.

As to my equivalent meaning acceptance, as far as anyone with a brain is concerned, what I accepted was equivalent to your wording. You're just too caught up in exact semantics and paranoid fear that I will later use that against you to notice that. And recall that I *explicitly* stated that I would accept any argument you would make. I *specifically* stated that the exact wording was irrelevant as far as I was concerned. I am not *required* to copy your opening statement letter for letter in order to accept your premises, you tool.
Posted by Dontbothertrying 4 years ago
Dontbothertrying
I'm not saying it was void according to your "procedure." I'm saying that I voided that round in order to address that your change in parameters of the debate.

"I have stated the reasons for my usage of an 'equivalent wording' acceptance numerous times now, as well as the reasons why your ongoing refusal to accept my acceptance is ridiculous. I will not do so again. We're done here. Take my advice or leave it; I simply don't care."

Yes, we know that you dodge the argument behind your keyboard. First you make the claim that you didn't misinterpret or negate any arguments, and that you simply "left one word out." Despite having clearly not done so. Then when called out you just avoid the subject and come up with more bullcrap like it was an "equivalent wording." You sit behind the keyboard, and you dodge the argument. Why on earth should I waste my time debating you?
Posted by Jingram994 4 years ago
Jingram994
No round in a debate is 'void' unless both parties fail to make comments relating to the previous comments in a valid manner. As our comments were related to the previous ones in a continuous manner, the round counted, though it obviously was not indicative of the actual topic as such.

I have stated the reasons for my usage of an 'equivalent wording' acceptance numerous times now, as well as the reasons why your ongoing refusal to accept my acceptance is ridiculous. I will not do so again. We're done here. Take my advice or leave it; I simply don't care.
Posted by Dontbothertrying 4 years ago
Dontbothertrying
The second round was void so that I could present your established change in the parameters of the debate. Rounds of opportunity for proper debate went from 4 to 3 in doing so. I created a 5-round debate. I wanted a 5-round debate. I should have to accept a shorter debate because you can't accept it without changing the parameters? You thought you didn't change the parameters but instead just changed "simply" one word? Really?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Bruinshockeyfan 4 years ago
Bruinshockeyfan
DontbothertryingJingram994Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I though con was more clear and straightforward.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 4 years ago
MrJosh
DontbothertryingJingram994Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO accepted BOP, but never actually presented an argument. Also, PRO was flat out rude.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
DontbothertryingJingram994Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro acknowledged having the burden of proof, but he never got around to presenting a case. I seems he hoped to win by setting up some definition of "better" based upon "ensuring" rather than "propagating," but he never got beyond the attempt at loading the semantics to get to the actual case. The case might have made it clear what he intended for the meaning, but he never got to his case. My guess is that he wanted to argue "Men are more technologically adept." ... but I coudn't figure it out either. In any case, Pro didn't make a clear resolution or meet the burden of proof. Both side got rather testy, but Pro jumped into the insults early and kept at it with more intensity, losing conduct. Attack the opponents arguments without claiming deliberate misrepresentation or characteristic lack of understanding.
Vote Placed by Nataliella 4 years ago
Nataliella
DontbothertryingJingram994Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was rather rude, and did not actually refute any of Con's arguments, they just called Con illogical. Pro was the one who turned this debate into a silly argument that has nothing to do with gender. Conduct to Con