The Instigator
crackrocks
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Men are smarter 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,477 times Debate No: 17842
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

crackrocks

Pro

I've had this debate before but I feel like it was unfairly voted on.

It seems obvious that feminists are absolutely misguided in there attempts to garner some sort leveling dogmas on certain facets of bourgeois disciplines. They are so radically in favor of "being treated like a man" that they are un-aware that they are perpetuating the very notion of inequality by idolizing the phantasm that it's better to be a man then a women. Even looking at the most distinguished contemporary feminists Judy Butler you can see in nearly everything she does that she would rather have been born a man (Her sexual orientation, her masculine clothing, and even her manor isms).

Furthermore in terms of I.Q. "the 98th percentile there are about twice more males than females, while at or above the 99.9th percentile there are about 15 times more males" (http://www.paulcooijmans.com......)

Seabiscuit once said, "patriarchy is a clear representation of intellect. Perhaps the grandest example is most appropriate. Humanity is by no means the largest species in terms of brute force and the like. However I'm sure my opponent would agree that, insofar as we have obviously conquered the natural world, I.e. replacing bio-centrism with our own anthropocentric sentient in terms of polluting rivers, harvesting animals, and bringing our children to zoo's, it would be appropriate to assume we've "won". Women in the same respect are not subservient because of rugged manly sex appeal or sheer physical force. Rather as I've alluded to before assertiveness is a matter of intelligence."

On religion,
Moreover, I would say that the framers of the largest and most prolific institution in history (Religion) were clever enough not only to convince the disenfranchised men into phantasms eternal life, happiness, or what have you; but to also convince the disenfranchised women into converting yet remaining disenfranchised. This is a clear indication that women are absolutely undermined by the superior man, in every sentient, noumenal or transcendental.
bluesteel

Con

Thanks for doing this debate again crackrocks.

==My case==

C1) According to Danielle (because it'd be funny to beat him, again, with her case):

<<<<<"The theory of multiple intelligences differentiates intelligence into various specific (primarily sensory) modalities rather than seeing it as dominated by a single general ability. There are a wide variety of cognitive abilities which are only very weakly correlated with one another, despite the close correlations between aspects of intelligence generally measured by traditional intelligence (IQ) tests or psychometrics [Danielle's #5]. The various types of intelligences include: spatial, linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic and existential.

Traditional IQ tests focus on logical-mathematical and spatial questions. However it is well established that women perform better than men on tests of verbal application and obtain better scores than men on most verbal memory tasks [Danielle's #6]. Women are also more "socially intelligent" than men. They have more brain circuits for communication, reading emotions , social nuances, nurturing skills and a greater ability to use both sides of the brain simultaneously (multi-tasking). Women are better at reading faces and recognizing emotional overtones in others, which largely explains the phenomena of "women's intuition" [Danielle's #7]. Obviously this is a significant evolutionary advantage.

Even the idea that men are naturally better at math and logic can be challenged on the grounds that social trends have led to this presumption. Research indicates that just exposing people to the perception that men are better than women at math not only makes women perform worse, but men are likely to rate their own math abilities more highly than girls even if their test scores were exactly the same. In countries where women aren't thought to be inferior at math, girls are much better represented in high-level math competitions [Danielle's #8]." [http://www.debate.org...]>>>>>

C2) Emotional intelligence

Danielle already covered this, but I'd like to cover it again.

A study by Goldman found that "emotional competencies" account for 67% of earnings potential. [6] Women significantly outscore mean on tests of Emotional Intelligence (EQ); men have barely twice the social skills of someone with Asperger's. [7]

C3) Another female advantage

The brain requires a great deal of oxygenated blood in order to function at its highest capacity. According to Edward O Laumann, PhD, "The majority of adult men under 60 think about sex at least once a day, reports Laumann. Only about one-quarter of women report this level of frequency. As men and women age, each fantasize less, but men still fantasize about twice as often. In a comprehensive survey of studies comparing male and female sex drives, Roy Baumeister, a social psychologist at Florida State University, found that men reported more spontaneous sexual arousal and had more frequent and varied fantasies." So not only are men's brains less capable of focusing on academic pursuits because they are more prone to distraction, but the male biology significantly impairs brain function as men fantasize since this causes significant amounts of oxygenated blood to rush to a man's extremities.

C4) Cosmo's reasons women are better

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 80 percent of those who have lost their jobs since December 2007 have been men . . . the Department of Education's statistics reveal that men are also less likely than women to graduate and get their bachelor's degrees. Men are also more likely to take longer than five years to complete their degree . . . a slew of experts are confident that women make greater bosses because they are better listeners, mentors, problem solvers, and multitaskers than their male counterparts. In a recent Daily News article, management expert Jay Forte said, "It's a very service-oriented economy [right now], so you need employees to be motivated. Women are better connectors than men and more astute about knowing how to activate passion in their employees . . . A study of 100,000 portfolios showed that women's investment returns outperform men's, 18 percent to 11 percent."

==Rebuttal==

R1) There are more men in the highest IQ categories

My opponent's own source says that although the mean IQ is the same for men and women, there is more IQ variance for men, meaning that there are more really smart men, but also more really dumb men. This doesn't prove anything either way; we have more geniuses but also more drooling idiots.

In addition, the "g factor" is the important factor on IQ tests. Colom (2002) finds that the g factor does not differ for men and women; men are better at "test taking" for the IQ test, but this doesn't translate to actual IQ. [1] Jorm (2002) finds that in studies where a male advantage in IQ is present, that advantage disappears if you control for health outcomes, and on tests that started with a female advantage, after controlling for health outcomes, the female advantage grows even larger. [2] You have to realize that many IQ meta-studies are global and since women are discriminated against in many countries (especially in terms of getting food at the dinner table and having access to health care), this is an important factor to correct for. Once you do, women are smarter than men!

This is backed up by a study from Keith et al (2007) that found a 2-4 IQ point advantage for females later in life. [3]

Large, representative studies of US students show that no sex differences in mathematics performance exist before secondary school. During and after secondary school, historic sex differences in mathematics enrollment account for nearly all of the sex differences in mathematics performance. [4] Over 300 studies verify this phenomenon, called "stereotype threat," by which if you're constantly told that you're not "supposed to" be good at something, you perform poorly on tests of that ability.

R2) Patriarchy

This is just the is-ought fallacy. Just because most recent societies were patriarchal doesn't mean this was good or because men were smarter. Men were STRONGER, so women found it harder to assert their dominance in societies governed by the sword – this is why patriarchy flourished. But in societies dominated by the brain, matriarchy may be a better model. According to author David Pearce, "There is one crude and spectacularly effective way to reduce global catastrophic risk. For evolutionary reasons, almost all wars are started and waged by men. Enacting legislation that allowed only women to stand for national public office would probably save hundreds of millions of lives this century—possibly more. I'd estimate the reduction in global catastrophic risk and existential risk would by its implementation lie at between 50% and 95%—actually closer to the latter percentage figure, but let's be conservative." [5]

R3) Religion

Actually, my opponent seems to be asserting that all religious people are equally stupid. If anything, the fact that the best and the brightest MEN in Catholic societies became celibate priests who did not reproduce is a reason that women today should be smarter. We naturally selected against the smartest males in our religious societies. Good job, men!

Vote Con.

[1] http://www.ucm.es...
[2] http://www.sciencedirect.com...
[3] "Sex differences in latent cognitive abilities ages 6 to 59: Evidence from the Woodcock–Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities"
[4] Ann M. Gallagher, James C. Kaufman, Gender differences in mathematics: an integrative psychological approach
[5] http://ieet.org...
[6] http://www.sq.4mg.com...
[7] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
crackrocks

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent, not only for accepting this debate, but also manufacturing viewers (with his picture) for the upcoming season of Dexter, I love that show.

This may be a bit too radical for some voters looking for stock. I already don't expect to win because long debates generally go un-read, and the winner is usually the one that takes the less radical position, or is the one that goes second, my opponent meets both of these criteria.
I'd like to point out my opponents demonstration of his own hubris and predispositions towards women.
In his last speech he states that, "Danielle already covered this, but I'd like to cover it again." As if he is confident in his own ability to outperform the inadequacies of Danielle's previous introspection.
It is with this symbolic gesture that I believe there is a true unshakable perception of male dominance. He undermines the plight of women without even realizing what he is doing. Even by taking the debate as a male he undermines the ability of women to defend themselves. This is why Men will always dominate women, even in a world where the indoctrinated egalitarian agent, defends the disenfranchised, he further perpetuates their disenfranchisement. So the voter is left with a choice either to vote for the truly honest misogynistic or the truly dis-honest misogynist, but either way proving misogyny as the appropriate behavior.
To many this may seem like a purely ad hominem waste of time, but I believe even more radically that it is an argument for male superiority. He is clearly doing a more thorough job then Danielle especially by supplementing her previous arguments with his own augmented ideology. CONSIDER THIS OFFENSE

The idea that women are "socially intelligent" means absolutely nothing in terms of the traditional criterion on which we measure intelligence. Women may be good at recognizing facial expressions but in terms of a scientific understanding of the way in which social relationships actually materialize is much more prominently developed by men than women. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud, Lacan, Foucault, Althusser, Zizek, Badiou etc. etc. To say that women are more socially intelligent has no more merit than to say that men are more athletically intelligent.

On mathematical intelligence (Both Danielle and Bluesteel)
The article never states that women are equaled in the field of mathematics but rather just explains the reasons why they are worse. Then they try to say that when the antagonisms against women are unrecognized, women perform better then when they are recognized.... Not equal to men just better then some other women (http://jezebel.com...)

On multi-tasking
"The ladybrain actually shows no more cross-talk than the dudebrain. And, more damningly, women's corpora callosa (Latin: still good for something after all these years) aren't even bigger than men's. According to Fine, early studies simply overgeneralized from small sample sizes." (http://jezebel.com...)

Furthermore
On G-factor
"Studies with large representative national samples from Spain, Denmark, and the United States, as well as meta-analyses of a large number of published studies throughout the world, all conclude that men on average are slightly but significantly more intelligent than women, by about 3-5 IQ points. So this has now become the new (albeit tentative) consensus in intelligence research." (http://www.psychologytoday.com...)
This research is obvious. But my opponent tries to show that when the "g-factor" is isolated the results become more equalized and even favor women.
However according to "Spearman's law of diminishing returns"(http://en.wikipedia.org...(psychometrics)), "SLDR predicts that the g factor will account for a smaller proportion of individual differences in cognitive tests scores at higher scores on the g factor." Meaning that the higher a persons standard IQ the lower results the person would have on a g-factor test. "Tucker-Drob (2009) found that a general factor accounted for approximately 75% of the variation in seven different cognitive abilities among very low IQ adults, but only accounted for approximately 30% of the variation in the abilities among very high IQ adults." This would obviously account for the leveling rendered by the G-factor test seeing as how men (as my opponent has conceded) outweigh women 15 to 1 in terms of high IQ scores. The less variance noticed by the test would undermine their cognitive ability of high IQ men and homogenize those differences with men much lower (120 IQ and under). And to mask the true genius of high IQ scorers would betray the merit of intelligence.

On "cosmos" and "Sexual Phantasms"
When referring to job loss, immediately after the part that my opponent quotes the article reads, "This could be because male-dominated fields have been hit the hardest, like manufacturing and finance." This has very little to do with intelligence and is simply an economic phenomenon. The fact that men take longer to go to school and have less degrees has nothing to do with intelligence seeing as how the resolved is not "who works harder men or women" and on financial portfolio's it is because women take less risks (as stated on the cosmos article a sentence or two later) and are more likely to put there money in reliable long term stocks, eg. Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, etc. while men are more likely to take risks that yield higher rewards. Instead of making me pick through all of these pseudo-empiric's which have no direct correlations to intelligence (economic, risk taking, work ethic) I'd like to get back to the debate.
Furthermore the fact that men have more diverse and longer sexual fantasies is still not correlated to intelligence, in the same way women talking to other women more about there petty and tedious problems is not indicative of intelligence but there incurable need for childish attention, which is why they relate better to children in the first place (which in turn is why they're elementary or middle school teachers up until higher academic levels like college where men then take over.) CONSIDER THIS A TURN THAT GARNERS A FURTHER BURDEN OF PROOF.

On religion
I'm not calling religious people stupid, just women. But I don't if this argument was very well thought out seeing as how you make the assumption that men always produce male offspring? And because smart men can't reproduce there will only be smart female babies? I feel like mis-understood something.

On patriarchy, David Pearce is hardly an expert, he is purely speculating. Even still peace is almost synonymous with a static tedious "herd" existence. Where people (women in this case) waste there lives with meaningless distractions until they reflect on their humdrum existence and realize they never really lived at all. Men have a higher existential intelligence in this case.

Conclustion
Do women tend to think that men are smarter than they are?
"Surprisingly, [both] men and women perceive men being smarter across generations. Both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers."
"What about the kids?
If there are children, [both] men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters."
(http://blog.chron.com...)
The fact that intelligence is not only tested better for boys, but that the people which know them best perceive them to be also more intelligent, is pretty thorough proof that Men are obviously more intelligent then women, not only on a standardized dehumanized level, but also in terms of the most intimate personal relationships that humanity can manufacture. To turn your back on this analysis would be a horrible mis-understanding and betrayal of the facts.
bluesteel

Con

Thanks for the quick response crackrocks.

==On Danielle==

The reason I chose to use Danielle's argument was because 1) she already dominated my opponent, so I thought it'd be funny since he quotes himself (Seabiscuit) from his previous debate with her, I thought it'd be funny to quote her and 2) because her wording is quite elegant, and I think she wrote a better argument for other measures of smartness than I could have.

This proves women are smarter because 1) Danielle, a woman, already beat Seabiscuit on this topic (a man, boy?) and 2) Danielle made a better argument than I could have as well, proving that women can easily defend themselves on this topic.

==On Social Intelligence==

My opponent says this is a useless new measure of intelligence (as opposed to old measures like IQ), but it correlates a lot more with success in life than IQ does, so it is more predictive, and it uses many forms of intelligence that Danielle named, such as linguistic, bodily-kinesthetic (body language), interpersonal (self-confidence, introspection), intrapersonal, and existential (knowing your place in the world). Some of the highest IQ males come across as drooling, unconfident idiots who can only talk about WoW because they lack this form of intelligence. Social intelligence could be deemed "applied intelligence" because it measures whether you can leverage your intelligence in a social and business setting. Of the authors my opponent names, only one dealt in social relations, Freud, and he was drastically wrong about how they worked, thinking all men's social problems stemmed from penis-envy and wanting to have sex with our mothers. This does not make him socially intelligent. Anna Freud, Sigmund's daughter, made far more lasting contributions to the field of psychology than her father. http://www.webster.edu... The rest of the men my opponent lists are philosophers, whose philosophy, if you cite it in the average social setting, would quickly end the conversation and prove you to be anti-social. Zizek? Seriously??

==On multi-tasking==

A team of British psychiatrists "have proven that men really are worse at multitasking than women." http://tinyurl.com... This may not require more cross-talk between hemispheres, since the math tasks were often in the same hemisphere as each other in the study. It may mean that women have more access to their subconscious minds, able to relegate one task to their subconscious while their conscious mind processes the other. Also, my opponent's source is illegitimate ("ladybrain"??).

==On IQ==

Other, non-g factor measurements are irrelevant to actual intelligence, however, because they merely measure test-taking ability according to Arthur Jensen of UC Berkeley. Who cares that g-factor fails to explain the variation between someone who scores a 150 and someone who scores a 155. g-factor DOES explain the variance between someone who scores a 155 and someone who scores an 80. According to Jensen, g-factor is the "best predictor . . . of that test's correlation with scholastic and workplace performance." http://psychology.uwo.ca... The other IQ factors aren't explanatory, so we can ignore them. Extend my Colom (2002) study that women score as well as men on g-factor tasks. Men score better on tasks that SOLELY correlate with how well they took the test.

Also, to answer his large meta-studies, extend the Jorm (2002) analysis that when we correct for health factors, women have higher IQ's than men.

Even if you buy the 2-5 point (non-g factor) IQ advantage (better test taking), it is not a significant advantage and does not make up for the much larger advantage women have on EQ scores. Also, women make up for this advantage with age (they improve, men get worse) - extend the Keith (2007) study that women have a 2-4 point IQ advantage later in life.

==On sexual fantasies==

My opponent tries to turn this because men are disproportionately college professors. This has more to do with discrimination than anything else and has improved significantly since the Civil and Women's Rights Movements. http://tinyurl.com... My opponent never really answers my argument that men are more easily distractible than women.

==On Cosmo==

There was some really important arguments in here.

1) Men who attend college take longer than women to graduate and are more likely to fail out of school (according to the Dept of Education). Women are smarter than men in terms of actual college performance. My opponent asserts this is because women work harder but it is more likely to be that they are smarter. My favorite saying from college: "work smarter, not harder."

2) Women are much better managers than men, since they have higher EQ's, they get more out of their workers. This is another explanation for why women were only 20% of those laid off during the recession, a part my opponent never answers.

3) Women perform better in the stock market (18% returns vs. 11% for men). My opponent points out this is because women take on less risk than men and asserts that men get higher return for that risk. However, men make a return of only 11% (so they make higher short-term returns and lower long-term returns). Safer, long-term investment strategies pay off, something you'll learn if you read Nassim Taleb, the incredible hedge fund manager who knows that cataclysmic market events are inevitable and learned how to make money off them with put-options.

Women are smarter investors - this is HUGE.

==Religion==

My opponent answers my response but doesn't really extend this in a way that is understandable. I don't see how Catholic Church dominance proves that women are stupid, when my opponent points out that men were just as likely to be sucked in by things like Indulgences.

==On Patriarchy==

My opponent never responds to my David Pearce evidence, which says that if women ruled the world, serious wars woud be at least 50% if not 90% less likely. He is not just speculating. According to Spike Peterson, a political scientist at the University of Arizona, "gendered identities are key to manifestations of violence . . . cultures vary significantly in how they construct masculinity (hence, war-making and rape are not universal), and . . . more violent societies evidence more systematic cultivation of gender polarity, rigid heterosexism, male power in physical and symbolic forms, and ideologies of masculine superiority." Male-dominated societies are empirically more violent. My opponent claims that peaceful societies are stagnant, but this is clearly not true in our new globalized society where business will flock to the peaceful, not war-like, countries. Look to Sub-Saharan Africa as an example; countries that remain peaceful get far greater foreign investment. In societies ruled by the brain, female leadership would be better since patriarchal mindsets are what lead to war.

==Women think men are smarter==

Danielle references several studies showing that women tend to overrate men and underrate themselves and men tend to extremely overrate themselves. Overrating your intelligence is a sign of stupidity, not intelligence, and likely leads men to work less hard than they SHOULD based on their actual intelligence (leading to problems in college).

==Children==

Possibly boys are smarter than girls. However, my Keith (2007) study shows that this trend reverses later in life, when women gain a 2-4 point IQ advantage. In addition, it's more overrating, like we just covered.

Drops:

1) Danielle: women score better on verbal memory tasks

2) Danielle: women can read faces, tell when people are lying; are better interviewers

3) Social trends, not innate intelligence, explain any early male advantages in IQ/math

4) Women score significantly higher than men on EQ

5) Goldman study, EQ accounts for 67% of earnings potential, so is a more important measure than IQ

5) Keith (2007), the IQ advantage reverses with time
Debate Round No. 2
crackrocks

Pro

Drops- Don't let him try to address these as I would have no way to refute them.
1. My appreciation for Dexter, was never acknowledged by opponent
2. His further dis-enfranchisement of women.
3. Athletic intelligence (Please read the argument itself not this small outline)
4. Lack of evidence for equality in mathematical fields.
5. The cosmos article which directly contradicted his thesis a sentence after the one he quoted. (Consider this a turn)
6. "Furthermore the fact that men have more diverse and longer sexual fantasies is still not correlated to intelligence, in the same way women talking to other women more about there petty and tedious problems is not indicative of intelligence but there incurable need for childish attention, which is why they relate better to children in the first place (which in turn is why they're elementary or middle school teachers up until higher academic levels like college where men then take over.) CONSIDER THIS A TURN THAT GARNERS A FURTHER BURDEN OF PROOF."
7. The Patriarchy argument was misinterpreted by my opponent he never addresses the analysis I give about brute force being retarded by intelligence (pun).
8. Religion was also mis-interpreted and the base thesis fell into a non-sequitur set logical assumptions (women only have girls, men only have boys) Consider the perpetuated dis-enfranchisement as clear offense.
9. This wasn't a drop but take into account his mis-information about EQ which was massaged to mis-direct the reader.

Social Intelligence
Lacan "was a French psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who made prominent contributions to psychoanalysis and philosophy" (http://en.wikipedia.org...) He was a PhD in psychoanalysis and a clinical psychiatrist.
Foucault "is best known for his critical studies of social institutions, most notably psychiatry, medicine, the human sciences and the prison system, as well as for his work on the history of human sexuality."
Althusser published books on psycho-analysis
Badiou- His book on ethics explains the sociology of moral systems
Zizek- Okay fine, maybe not a traditional psychoanalysis, but he often writes on the subject.
Freud's Daughter
"Most of her life was dedicated to her father and his work" She was clearly standing on the shoulders of her father, and my opponent couldn't quote anything that she contributed on her own, while he was very familiar with the work of Freud himself. The implications are clear, either she really didn't contribute much of her own, or my opponent is to misogynistic to give her credit (The former is probably more correct).

Multi-tasking
He quotes 1 study, and it turns out that it was the only study ever on the subject where only 50 males and 50 females were selected. So I would assume that this one premature study with only a limited number of people and results where there was only one variable in intelligence is not enough to claim universally that women are better then men at multi-tasking.
Part 2: I used the same site he did in his first speech.

On IQ "Who cares that g-factor fails to explain the variation between someone who scores a 150 and someone who scores a 155." He concedes that the G-factor is not entirely accurate. This is especially important for men who measure 15 to 1 on the top 1% of intelligence to say that it should not make a difference would be extremely dis-honest. We are not measuring workplace performance, the test only demonstrates a knowledge of some arbitrary set of factors which generally coincide to how hard people work, not their actual aptitude.
On EQ My opponent offers no source to explain a beeter EQ score in his last speech, however I just happen to have one "the average EQ scores for women (98) and men (100)" (http://www.sq.4mg.com...) It may have been a blatant lie or mis-information on his part. CONSIDER THIS A TURN ALSO. Men have a better IQ and EQ then women.

On health factors. My opponent doesn't sort his supposition and just asserts them with no way of confirming it or not. Don't take his word for it. Also, (if it is true) in the same way I would say that, After you adjust for white people not being as athletically coordinated as African Americans, white people actually perform better. Don't buy this study.

On Sexual fantasies.
College Prof. are still 70+% male whatever the reason.

Cosmos
1. Just because you have a clever saying from your college days, doesn't give you offense in this debate round.
Women working harder is not thing we're debating.
2. He says they have higher EQ's i have proved otherwise. He tries to claim that I never addressed this but obviously I quoted from Cosmos "This could be because male-dominated fields have been hit the hardest, like manufacturing and finance." Women are physically ill-equipped to work in manufacturing and men take more higher reward risks which is why the vast majority of Wall-Street is male.
3. He quotes, Nassim Taleb as a Wall-street guru. Nassim Taleb is male. I could stop here but I won't. The vast majority of Wall street employers aren't looking for safe long term investments, rather they are looking for smart short-term money making strategies with high risk high reward monologues. Men are better at making money on Wall-street.

On religion my opponent answers this with the notion that smart men are, in a Darwinist fashion weeding themselves out leaving only women. For some reason when smart Men remain celibate only smart women can be born. This is completely wrong obviously because women don't only breed girls. And men don't only breed men. Extend the analysis on the first speech that talks about the perpetuation of the dis-enfranchisement of Christian women, who for some reason are coerced into religious institutions which step on them phenomenally and transcendentally. That makes them stupid.

On patriarchy
He augments his Pearce evidence with more speculation from another speculator. He offers ZERO facts on the issue and simply makes a claim about gender identification. He then mis-interprets my existential analysis as something that is required to be lucrative in foreign markets. That's not what I meant. extend the analysis that men have more existential intelligence then women. Furthermore none of this has anything to do with my initial argument about Patriarchy ". Humanity is by no means the largest species in terms of brute force and the like. However I'm sure my opponent would agree that, insofar as we have obviously conquered the natural world, I.e. replacing bio-centrism with our own anthropocentric sentient in terms of polluting rivers, harvesting animals, and bringing our children to zoo's, it would be appropriate to assume we've "won". Women in the same respect are not subservient because of rugged manly sex appeal or sheer physical force. Rather as I've alluded to before assertiveness is a matter of intelligence."
Extend this offense. Don't let him try to address in his next speech as it would abusive in terms of allowing me a response.

On perceptions
Perceptions aren't developed irrespective of fact. The perception that women are sub-servant was developed from somewhere. And even if it perpetuates it's own claim the claim is still valid. Pointing out the cause of the thesis isn't disproving the thesis. Moreover to say that if a a child with down syndrome is only perceived as less intelligent, would be correct. I'm sure to some people children with down syndrome are equaled in some arbitrary set of functions, but the almost homogenized subjective hypothesis that mental handicaps are indicative of less intelligence irrespective of the objective claim which say would they are equal, Would be much more widely agreed upon, and much more correct.

VOTE PRO!!!!
bluesteel

Con

Thanks for the debate crackrocks!

==Rebuttal==

R1) Drops

Lol. Not a single argument that my opponent listed as dropped was a GOOD argument. I don't have time to address every little inane thing that he says. If he extends a drop, make him explain why it's a reason he wins, which he doesn't do for any of his points.

The only argument explained sufficiently in detail to address here:

Women are good with kids => I didn't address this because it's not REALLY a turn. Being good with kids doesn't make one "not smart." If anything, men's inability to work well with small children is a deficiency.

R2) Social Intelligence

Not a single one of the people my opponent continues to list is an authority on current human social relationships. Lacan believed that most psychology stemmed from men's fear of castration. Foucault believed the State is constantly creating new ways to spy on us (biopower).

Anna Freud - continued to apply her father's work, specifically emphasizing how the ego could be trained SOCIALLY. She is considered THE founder of child psychology, a significant accomplishment in its own right. [1]

At the end of the day, listing individual people proves NOTHING about general trends in social intelligence.

R3) Multi-tasking

The Keith Laws study was a relatively recent study that did in fact study 50 males and 50 females, which still gave statistically significant results. It would take far too long to test thousands of people, one-by-one. This doesn't invalidate the study.

In addition, my opponent does not do a literature review so he never proves that it is the ONLY study on the subject. Even if it was, this ALSO doesn't invalidate the study.

And I never used his weird source.

Ultimately, my opponent concedes that women are better at multi-tasking.

R4) IQ

My opponent keeps pushing that men have more variance in IQ scores. However, HIS OWN SOURCES from the previous round show that IQ variations at the very top end are from being able to take the test better, not from improvements on g-factor tasks, which Professor Jensen from UC Berkeley says is the only part of the IQ test that actually correlates with real-life workplace and school performance. Extend the Colom (2002) study that men and women score the same on g-factor tasks.

In addition, my opponent drops my refutation that this means there are many more really really stupid men, if the variance is higher, so it balances out. He also drops the Keith (2007) study proving that although young boys have an advantage over young girls, that trend reverses later and women have a 2-4 point IQ advantage over men. This should lose him the entire debate right here since his whole (real) case is centered around IQ scores.

R5) EQ

He claims I provide no source. I sourced this in round ONE, the Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk... Women have an average score of 47 and men have an average score of 42. He dropped it in round 2. It's too late now to rebut.

Even if you let him provide a new source, his source includes male-biased categories like self-regard and we already saw, men tend to completely overrate themselves (hubris) and women tend to have more humility. In my opponent's source, women SIGNIFICANTLY outscore men on 3 of the 5 categories. In fact, as I'm writing this, I'm realizing that the averages the source cites don't even make sense. I re-did the averages, with their own category scores, and women scored a 100, men scored a 98.6. Another illegit source for my opponent...

R6) Health factors

Remember the Jorm (2002) study which found that once you correct for health factors, women outscore men on IQ. My opponent just tells you, for no real reason, not to buy the study, but any good regression analysis controls for as many variables as it possibly can. Men can't be smarter than women if other studies are just capturing health effects of better childhood nourishment.

R7) College professors

College professors are still predominately male because of the tenure system - historical discrimination takes longer to correct when there is less job turnover. My opponent never answers the Jay Forte (management expert) evidence cited by Cosmo that "a slew of experts are confident that women make greater bosses because they are better listeners, mentors, problem solvers, and multitaskers." No valid reason is given why men are better at being college professors, but women ARE better bosses, and this is backed by expert testimony and logical analysis.

R8) Cosmo

1. Men are worse at school, particularly college, where men are more likely to fail out and need extra time to graduate. If you're more likely to fail out of school and need more time than everyone else to complete school-work, most people would label you learning disabled. This really does prove women are smarter, at least in applied settings.

2. Women were not hard hit by the recession. Women using their brains (white collar) rather than brawn (blue collar) actually WOULD prove they're smarter. Refusing to take fleety and risky Wall Street jobs - also a smart move, given what happened. They also were less likely to be laid off as managers, as the Jay Forte evidence said, since they were especially needed during the recession to manage well.

3. My opponent says men are better at making money on Wall Street; the problem is, they are also better at LOSING it when things go sour, which is why the study of 100,000 portfolios found that women earn an average return of 18%, men earn only 11%. Men get no credit for getting a risky short-term gain and then losing all of it AND MORE. Women are smarter at investing; period. Warren Buffet makes less risky long-term bets and does much better than most other young "hot-shot" investors.

R9) Religion

All Christians were at some point duped by their institutions (indulgences, many predictions of the "end times" leading them to donate all their belongings to the Church only to not get their stuff back). This proves nothing about men over women, it only may prove something about all Christians.

R10) Patriarchy

I completely turn this with the the Spike Peterson analysis - that societies that instill patriarchy and masculine superiority have far higher rates of violence and rape and the Pearce analysis that if women lead, great power war is reduced by 50-90%. Patriarchy is clearly a bad thing.

My opponent asserts we need patriarchy to subdue nature; climate change proves that we need to work alongside nature, not subdue it, or we lose in the end.

R11) Perception

Perception is not fact. Men think our brains (and our penises) are bigger than they actually are. This hubris actually leads us to not work hard enough in college and as bosses, which is why women perform better at both. Men's false perception is a sign of stupidity.

Con Voters:

1) The Goldman study finds EQ predicts 67% of earnings potential. Both studies (mine and my opponent's, corrected) in this round show that women have higher EQ scores.

2) Keith (2007) - dropped - shows that although young boys outscore young girls on IQ, women outscore men 2-4 points later on. Since later ages matter more (job performance, etc), and the topic is women, not girls, this is a clear Con win on IQ.

3) Women are better at investing, better at school, and are better bosses, proved through multiple sources.

4) Women are better at multi-tasking (study is essentially dropped).

5) Men overrate themselves leading to hubris, which hurts them professionally and academically.

6) Matriarchal societies would be less violent (Spike Peterson). Women make better leaders of "men."

At the end of the day, who is "smarter"? The man with the IQ of 130, who rates himself as smarter than Albert Einstein, while sitting in his parent's basement jerking off and playing World of Warcraft, OR the woman with the 134 IQ who is managing Ebay? (remember, women outscore men by 4 points at this stage)

Vote Con.

[1] Shapiro, Michael. The Jewish 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Jews of All Time. p. 276
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
RFD: This debate was a pleasure to read. Con challenged the traditional, narrow focus of IQ tests successfully, extensively sourced his claims and refuted the bulk of Pro's arguments. S&G, as well as presentation was far better than Pro's. I gave Con conduct because Pro's language occasionally wandered into blatant sexism over and beyond the topic of debate.
Posted by crackrocks 5 years ago
crackrocks
I'd also like to note he still did not recognize my Dexter comment, I mean come on
Posted by crackrocks 5 years ago
crackrocks
I'd also like to note he still did not recognize my Dexter comment, I mean come on
Posted by crackrocks 5 years ago
crackrocks
Yes, yes I am
Posted by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
yeah, when he refers to not liking the voting in his other debate, he's talking about his debate with danielle (as seabiscuit)
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
I have a feeling that cracksrocks is Seabiscuit....
Posted by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
lol, this was fun. I was tempted to paste Danielle's rebuttal, but I thought that was going too far.
Posted by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
oops, forgot the URL for Cosmo http://www.cosmopolitan.com...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
crackrocksbluesteelTied
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: I gave bluesteel a point for conduct since Pro consistently try to make bluesteel's references to Danielle's case an "offense", and also for arguments since he effectively refuted the validity of IQ tests as measures of intelligence. Pro made several concessions and denials without proofs as well, and his sources were biased.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
crackrocksbluesteelTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: All of Pro's arguments were refuted easily.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
crackrocksbluesteelTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Many of crackrock's points were kinda ridiculous. Crackrocks case centered around IQ. Even when we ignore EQ and such, bluesteel showed that there was little to no advantage (the reverse of the trend, variability, etc).
Vote Placed by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
crackrocksbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was a pleasure to read. Con challenged the traditional, narrow focus of IQ tests successfully, extensively sourced his claims and refuted the bulk of Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
crackrocksbluesteelTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Debates like this annoy me a little, its like setting yourself up to lose.