The Instigator
Seabiscuit
Pro (for)
Losing
39 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
61 Points

Men are smarter then women

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,738 times Debate No: 17292
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (17)

 

Seabiscuit

Pro

I don't that the topic warrants any real outrage. Obviously the answer is a matter of Nietzsche-an perspectivism. That is whether a standard of brilliance outweighs that of cooking cleaning and mothering abilities. However, jokes aside, there is a real partially objective conclusion based on IQ results, SAT scores, historical patriarchy and the like.
Danielle

Con

Okay, convince me.
Debate Round No. 1
Seabiscuit

Pro

"based on IQ results, SAT scores, historical patriarchy and the like."
Debate isn't analogous of bourgeois egalitarianism, you can't just assume I'm going to do all the work for you. Try to clash instead of responding with under 20 characters.
Danielle

Con

Debate isn't analogous of bourgeois egalitarianism, you can't just assume I'm going to do all the work for you.

The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a non-agnostic claim [1]. In this case, Pro undoubtedly has that burden as well as a scientific burden of evidence considering his claim is based on biology. As such, I'm not assuming that Pro should be "doing all the work for me" but rather holding him to the proper expectations of any standard debate. The reason my last round was so short is because he did not make any arguments for me to respond to in R1. So far he has failed to make any arguments in favor of the resolution.


Try to clash instead of responding with under 20 characters.

Being rude and exhibiting poor conduct is not a contention.

"based on IQ results, SAT scores, historical patriarchy and the like."

Due to the fact that this is such an incomplete, unsourced and non-cited explanation, I thought Pro was going to expand on this hence why I didn't respond to it in the previous round.

I'll start by pointing out that patriarchy has no bearing on men being smarter than women, and Pro must explain how or why that is the case which he hasn't thus far. Moreover, patriarchy has not always been employed. First, we'll have to define patriarchy. The official definition is a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe; a society, community, or country based on this social organization [2]. In that case, you can see that male intelligence is not implied anywhere in that description as all it says is that the male has more authority, not greater intelligence. Pro hasn't proven that authority warrants intelligence. For our purposes, we are probably defining patriarchy as a male-dominated (controlled) society.

So how or why was this authority established? One major component was the rise of monotheism as the Jewish tradition is heavily patriarchal. According to the Creation story, God made man in His (notice God who is allegedly sex-less is always referred to as male) image, and woman was created by taking a rib from that man to give him a companion. I could go on, but in short, religious myths and tradition have perpetuated the idea that men are somehow superior to women and ought to be more highly revered. For instance, women could not become clergy, own property, etc.

Another reason for male dominance is of course their physical prowess. This is why men were (and still can be to an extent) compared to "pack leaders" in the animal kingdom. However, dominant strength is not an argument for dominant intelligence. I could go on about why a historic patriarchy proves nothing, but I'll wait to see what Pro comes up with about establishing how patriarchy is about intelligence before responding.

Regarding SAT scores, this standardized test is among the most highly criticized in the nation in terms of its assessment. There have been concerns about whether the test is equitable to all those taking it [3], and reports that the test has no statistical validity for tracking trends in measuring ability of American students [4]. It measures how many questions you can get right in a specific amount of time, but that is quite problematic and far from a legitimate indicator of overall "intelligence." For the sake of character space I'll leave it at that unless Pro challenges this; however, the point is that the test has proven to be far from accurate in terms of appropriately measuring intelligence vs. test taking skills, and only emphasizes or rewards specific aptitudes while ignoring various other indicators of intelligence.

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 [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 [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" [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 [8].

There have also been other studies indicating that it's not sex but height which plays a role in determining intelligence. Psychometricians have known since the end of the 19th century that height is positively correlated with intelligence: taller people on average are more intelligent than shorter people, and men are taller than women in every human population. However once we control for height, women are slightly but significantly more intelligent than men. Height has exactly the same effect on intelligence for men and women [9].

-- CONCLUSION --

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa notes that general intelligence has likely evolved as a domain-specific psychological mechanism to deal with evolutionary novelty. However, unlike populations in different geographic parts of the world, men and women within a population have always faced the same level of evolutionary novelty throughout evolutionary history because they have always migrated together [9]. As such, there would have been no reason for men to be more intelligent than women though it's true their brain components are different thus warranting differing strengths and weaknesses. Pro hasn't attempted to prove that particular strengths akin to men are superior indicators of overall intelligence compared to the strengths of women. He also hasn't proven that his measuring indicators are valid. Until he does, we have no reason to accept that men are more intelligent than women.

[1] Michalos, Alex. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. 1969. p. 370.
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] Jacobs, W. R. Is the SAT Fair? Journal of College Admissions, 1995. Vol 146. pp.
22-31.
[4] http://65.181.147.127/TMSTN/Articles/ContUseAndMisuseSATscores.pdf
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] Rahman, Qazi; Abrahams, Sharon; Wilson, Glenn D. Neuropsychology, Vol 17(2), Apr 2003, 240-246.
[7] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
[8] http://jezebel.com...
[9] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Seabiscuit

Pro

I'm going proper.
"So far he has failed to make any arguments in favor of the resolution." You wrote 10 paragraphs in response to the first statement, I must of made some rudimentary argument somewhere.
She makes implicit assumptions about the framework of debate, that for some reason her position required absolutely no substance until the second round. An agnostic position would be that we are condemned by the lack of a concrete noumenal existence, to make any congenital assumptions about anything. Therefore, in order to affirm the previous position you would be forbidden by the nature of agnosticism, to present any evidence at all. But since you didn't do that, I'll assume your NEGATION of the resolution is indicative of your partiality, not agnosticism.
But real talk.
Although the link may have seemed vague, 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.
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...)
On standardized testing.
Collages aren't interested in in facial queues and even if the language part of the brain is bigger the male brain is still on average 10% larger. Moreover, (I'm jumping quite a bit) on your final paragraph before the conclusion. If on average taller people are more intelligent, and you yourself just, for some reason, acknowledged that men are ubiquitously taller then women, then how is it that you've gained any offense? Clearly that's an obvious turn.
The purpose of standardized testing is to demonstrate your knowledge of a subject. How is this not indicative of intelligence especially when you yourself have said that women have better memorization skills. It seems that you think all the traditional agencies of knowledge demonstrations are somehow flawed as if they were designed for men. These tests weren't made to be subjective, men just happened to be better at them. Furthermore you've failed to present any actual demonstration of intellect by any woman, as if saying that they are better is enough regardless of how much better, as if men measure at 10 emotes (fake ways of measuring social intelligence), while women measure at 15 emotes. You can't make claims about disparities if there is no way to measure/prove them.

On your religious oppression argument (I obviously did not give justice to the proper road map I gave earlier). Religion didn't invent misogyny, it's not as if people were synthetically conditioned to dominate women. Even if it was perpetuated by religion, I would say that the framers of the largest and most prolific institution in history 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.

In, conclusion the fact that you've rejected the, traditionally accepted weighing mechanism for measuring intellect, one which colleges base an extremely large percent admission on, an offered flimsy justification for why the entire scholastic institution should reject the traditional aptitude, or even offered an alternative based on some provable measurable data (which I.Q. and SAT offer) then you should reject the opponents position. Secondly is the male biology being nearly implicit indications of higher intelligence (height, brain size). Thirdly, is the misogynistic religious abduction of female sentient. Fourthly would be the historical patriarchy in terms intellectual dominance, that being that intellect is the largest hegemonic resource, and is an obvious exhibition of authority. Fifthly, the resolution requires us to choose one perspective over another, and although there is no universal standard the revert back to, there is a historical objectivity favoring man. Music, art, technology, political reform (the invention of democracy, communism), philosophy (for every Simone de Beauvoir, there is a Jean Paul Sartre; but not vice versa), metaphysics, science, literature, mathematics, militarism, psychology, sociology, etc. etc. all require intellect and for every one woman that has contributed there are a countless number of men that have surpassed her.

On an unrelated note I would like to thank my formidable opponent for participating, and taking this debate seriously. You certainly deserve a doctorate for dissertation you authored previously, but once again jokes aside, I look forward to your final rebuddle.
Danielle

Con

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Seabiscuit 5 years ago
Seabiscuit
No I understand the vague synopsis that people have been "voting on," but I haven't been told what points I dropped or misunderstood, just that I have dropped them.
Posted by CGBSpender 5 years ago
CGBSpender
That's ok I can see how the wording is confusing. Basically what I am saying is that there was some confusion in your opponent's understanding of some of the differences between Christianity and Judaism.

If you're asking me why I support con's side it is a mix of your poor conduct and your misunderstanding of her points that led to you reaffirming points that had already been addressed. To be fair I don't approve of her forfeiting the last round.
Posted by Seabiscuit 5 years ago
Seabiscuit
What points were uncontested?
Posted by Seabiscuit 5 years ago
Seabiscuit
Sorry in your last comment I assumed you were saying women weren't subservient to men in the Christian world, not that the lord is gender-less.
Posted by CGBSpender 5 years ago
CGBSpender
That's a Christian book so I assume you are agreeing with me.
Posted by Seabiscuit 5 years ago
Seabiscuit
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
Posted by CGBSpender 5 years ago
CGBSpender
Just to clarify, Adam initially was both genders and the fact that Eve was made from Adam's rib is supposed to signify that woman is neither above nor below man by by his side as an equal. The whole God being referred to as a he has more to do with the English language and the Roman Catholic tradition than it does with ancient Hebrew or the Jewish tradition. Still Con I completely support your side I just thought that needed to be made clear.
Posted by Seabiscuit 5 years ago
Seabiscuit
When do people usually start voting?
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Danielle should be forced to drink whatever she is holding in the picture immediately before she posts her next round.
Posted by Seabiscuit 5 years ago
Seabiscuit
Grape "So far you a winning arguments but losing spelling and grammar."
Come on
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
SeabiscuitDanielleTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments by Con, Conduct to Pro as Con forfeited one round.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
SeabiscuitDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Seabiscuit could have won a point for conduct (since Danielle forfeited), but his attempt to shift the burden of proof (in the second round) makes it a tie. Danielle pointed out alternatives to fields of intelligence and noted the inaccuracy of the IQ test in determining overall intelligence...something that not only effectively destroyed Seabiscuit's "argument", but was not refuted by Seabiscuit in his last round. REVISED RFD FROM THE FORMER CAST 2 MONTHS AGO
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
SeabiscuitDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit :\
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
SeabiscuitDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO failed to provide an argument or any sources until the final round (which is too late) and made numerous mistakes. Con loses conduct for forfeiting the final round.
Vote Placed by Atheism 5 years ago
Atheism
SeabiscuitDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: /facepalm. See comments below.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
SeabiscuitDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: The winner of this debate is absolutely clear. Conduct for forfeit.
Vote Placed by nerdykiller 5 years ago
nerdykiller
SeabiscuitDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: ARE u people HIGH? Seabiscuit's wtf topic.... Like what BLuesteel said conduct is tied. Actually I agree with what Bluesteel says. He basically just said everything that i wanted to say.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
SeabiscuitDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Conduct - tied; Con forfeited, Pro wasted a round trying to shift the burden of proof. Convincing - Con offers alternate measures of intelligence, like language, that Pro doesn't respond to. Also, Con explains why psychologically, in certain societies, women score lower on IQ tests, in spite of not actually having lower IQs. Spelling - various pro mistakes and organization (like "collages")
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
SeabiscuitDanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is instigator, and so has the burden of proof. Pro failed to try to make a case until the last round, when new arguments are disallowed by debate convention.Pro therefore made no case. BTW, Pro's argument is wrong because "intelligence" is determined by the average, not the standard deviation. The averages are the same. There are ore very intelligent men, but also more very unintelligent men. Conduct loss for forfeit.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
SeabiscuitDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for the forfeit, everything else was significantly better for Con so the rest of the points go there.