Women are insane
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
|Voting Style:||Open with Elo Restrictions||Point System:||Select Winner|
|Updated:||2 years ago||Status:||Post Voting Period|
|Viewed:||6,519 times||Debate No:||54486|
Debate Rounds (3)
Insane=in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction.
First round is for acceptance only.
It's a fact that women are more emotional and less logical then men.
67% of Atheists are men.
"Women are more sensitive to the Holy Spirit than men".
Women are also more likely than men to pray to an invisble sky daddy they can't prove exists.
(75 percent versus 62 percent)
Women are also more likely than men to experience spiritual and
especially psychological distress, with about one-third
(32%, compared to only 20%).
While men typically emphasize such issues as career attainment,
achieving financial independence, and decision-making competence,
most women place a premium on matters of faith.
Women are much more inclined than are men to say that they are
"absolutely committed" to religious faith.
This all puts women in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction.
At this point, I'd like to point out that the burden of proof is on Pro to prove conclusively that women are, by nature, "more insane" than men. In the process, he must clearly delineate what he perceives as normal, which mind you is completely arbitrary, and as a deviation therefrom.
He begins by claming that women are "more emotional and less logical then men." At this point, I'd like to point out that his sources cannot do the talking for him; neither I nor our readers are expected to pour through his sources to discover the arguments he intended to make.
However, I must point out his deception. His source does not prove his point even in the slightest. All it says is that emotional wiring is different in both men and women because, through evolution, women have had to deal with more internal stressors such as childbirth. All the study brought up in that men are wired to respond to external stressors, and women to internal stressors. This does not signal, in the slightest, to a deviation from "normal." Pro is simply deceiving you and loosely citing vaguely related pieces, yet his assertion is backed by nothing.
He then points to the fact that 67% of atheists are men. So? How does this prove his argument? How is it even vaguely related to his argument that "women are insane?" Is his argument that, if someone is religious then they are insane, by definition? If that's so, that's a very hefty claim that deserves a separate debate and a completely separate burden of proof. There are a number of conceivable reasons that fewer women are atheists than men. One possible explanation is sexism toward female atheists that dates back to 18th century literature (1. http://tinyurl.com...).
He then makes a completely unvalidated claim, first citing a website who claims to represent an "intersection of faith and life." Clearly this is a biased source, but I reviewed it nevertheless. First and foremost, Pro didn't even read the article. The author of this piece represented this as a message told to men, coupled with the notion that women are, supposedly, more moral. The author was not making this argument, but merely arguing that it is a pervasive notion in the Christian community. There's no citation for the claim in either way, so it's a moot point.
He then cites a Wikipedia page about the role of women in Judaism. So? How is this even remotely related to his argument?
Then he cites a page from Sage Journals asking me to sign in. How is this an argument? This is getting laughable.
The next link is even worse: either a completely broken link, or deception on Pro's side. It says: "Error: Disk Quota Exceeded" and then again asks for a member ID. This is again completely unrelated to Pro's resolution.
Pro then provides statistics with a broken link, so we cannot verify from what he has given that he is actually making a coherent point. But there is data suggesting that women are, on average, more religious than men, which is attributed to a number of factors such as discrimination. Even with this in mind, though, and even if we cut through the reasons that women may have for being more religious than men, how does this even remotely prove a point? This is completely irrelevant to the resolution, and even Pro's use of "invisible sky daddy" is quite offensive to people who think differently than him. Pro's case here, effectively, is that religion equals insanity. If that's the case, then any man who is an atheist is insane, and any women is an atheist isn't insane, so because all women aren't insane, the resolution falls.
Do you see the error in such ridiculous logic?
I followed the next link and it wasn't found, so once again the statistics cannot be found. Again, how does this even matter? And if we even take his numbers, the same logic applies: the 32% of women would be insane, and the 20% of men would be insane, so 68% of women are sane, and 80% of men are sane, so, by his own statistics and by his own logic, the resolution is negated.
Let me note that I'm not suggesting that these people are insane. As I said, this is a ludicrous, unrelated point that he hasn't communicate the causality of. I'm simply showing that, even if these figures were substantiated and even if he could prove causality, the case falls.
He then claims that men "typically emphasize such issues as career attainment.......matters of faith." Notice that there is no citation for this claim whatsoever, so he cannot prove this.
Has Pro considered that women have been discriminated against for centuries, still suffer a massive wage gap to the tune of 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns (2. http://tinyurl.com...), and traditional gender roles as well as workplace discrimination has often confined them to the home?
He also hasn't considered that this is changing. For instance, we've seen a record number of female breadwinners, with about 4 out of 10 households headed by a female breadinnwer (3. http://tinyurl.com...). Whether women have entered the workforce is largely due to economic factors -- for instance, women from poor homes are essentially forced to work to support their families -- but there's been a rise in middle-income women in the workforce in recent years.
But, even if Pro's assertion were true -- and it isn't, especially because more women now attend college than men (4. http://tinyurl.com...) -- it wouldn't prove his resolution.
As for his next link, we have another broken link. But, again, even if it were true, I have to ask: how would this prove your point? It wouldn't.
He then claims that these completely tangenital, unsubstantiated, and in some cases flat-out false points prove his case. Yet he hasn't connected any of them causally to the resolution, nor has he defined "normal" or explained why these stiatistics, even if true, apply to all women as the resolution states that women, ipso facto, are "insane."
Pro hasn't made a single argument. All he has done is provide a list of links, all of which are completely unrelated to this resolution, all of which I have thoroughly pored through. I've even demonstrated that I've done more reading than he has for his own sources -- see the discussion from the live science piece.
Pro's resolution does not obtain, and should be seen as nothing other than an attack on women which he cannot substantiate in the slightest, nor has he made any discernible attempt to do so.
Women are insane. It's a fact. They won't do a direct scientific study on it, because it's not politically correct.
Every man knows women are insane. They experience t everyday. Irrational crying, outbursts, unable to decide what they want, PMS moodiness...Remember your 2nd or 3rd grade teacher? If she was female, she would lose it and start screaming for no reason. I once asked a woman what she did for a living and she went off on a 30 minute tantrum about how much she hated her boss. I once passed a woman and said excuse me and she said that wasn't "polite".
It's like they are bi-polar. They can be normal one minute and then BAM!, psycho the next!.
They say they want to marry nice guys, but date bad boys. They ask stupid questions and want lies for answers.
"Does this make me look fat?"
They assume you can read their minds and get pissed if you can't.
They can't just own one cat.
And yes, believing in an invisible sky daddy isn't rational. Their whole lives are based on faith, not logic.
Just admit it. if you're a guy you not only know women are psycho, you lived it!
At this point, this debate is pretty much over as Pro has dropped every single one of my arguments, save for the contenton on religious faith, but even his response to that is wholly inadequate and unsourced, so that won't salvage his position in this debate, nor will it fulfill his burden of proof.
Let me begin by recapping. Pro began by listing a number of assertions and links, none of which were backed by the links that he had offered nor had he delineated precisely what was in those links -- many of them were in fact broken. I did some research (and, by that I mean, I copy and pasted one of his sentences into Google) and found a very interesting link:
Many of Pro's arguments down to the sources down to the paranthesis were plagiarized -- literally copy and pasted -- from this cite. What's funny, actually, is that this site actually claims that men are more likely to engage in violent crime than women, tend to be more egoistic, are more likey to become irritable and violent, and that 80% of suicides are carried out by men.
Now, I'm not going to suggest that this source that Pro has used his credible, for none of these assertions, especially the ones Pro himself pointed out, are properly sourced. However, these contentions are about as valid as his, and I find it quite hilarious not only that he plagiarized, and not only that he expected me not to find out; he also didn't think that, in finding out, it would be possible to turn his own source against him.
Now, onto my rebuttals of the recent "arguments" Pro just offered. I have some extra space, which is peculiar given the way I usually write, so I'm going to copy and paste his argument sentence by sentence and go from there.
"Women are insane. It's a fact. They won't do a direct scientific study on it, because it's not politically correct."
This is fascinating. First Pro claims that there is research proving that women are insane, but now claims that there isn't data to support it. Why is he backtracking on his claim?
And I shouldn't need to point out, since DDO'ers are very intelligent people, that the logic of "Trust me, this is a fact" is nonsensical unless you can prove to me that this is a fact. Pro has the BOP, and he hasn't proven anything. By admitting that there isn't data to this end, he has effectively conceded the debate.
In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. At this point, I'd like to give credit to Martley who posted several studies in the comment section of this debate.
Martley brings us to a study from the National Institutes of Health [1. http://tinyurl.com...]. This study presented the following findings:
"The incidence of schizophrenia was two to three times higher among males than among females. Even though the use of different diagnostic systems yielded slightly different risk rates, the elevated risk for males remained consistent."
So schizophrenia, a brain disorder that has very adverse effects such as causing people to hear voices that aren't actually present [2. http://tinyurl.com...], is much more common in men. This is interesting.
Is this a function of insanity? No, I don't think so. But my burden in this debate is not to prove that men are insane and women aren't, but to demonstrate that Pro's arguments are completely loony and there is scientific data simply proving his assertions wrong.
"Every man knows women are insane."
This is anecdotal evidence which bears a very high burden of proof. But watch me refute it with an appeal to logic and anecdotal evidence.
A: I am a man.
B: If I do not agree with this statement, I do not "know women are insane."
C: I do not agree with this statement.
D: Therefore, this statement does not hold.
"They experience t everyday. Irrational crying, outbursts, unable to decide what they want, PMS moodiness..."
This is another appeal to anecdotal evidence, and Pro has no proof for this whatsoever.
To counter his anecdotal evidence since I don't have the BOP, I can simply provide my own anecdotal evidence.
My lab partner for one of my courses is female, but I have never seen her engage in any of this behavior whatsoever -- and I'm with her for very long periods of time because doctoral programs are hard, or so I've heard.
I could also point out that my mother, sister, aunt, etc. do not behave in this way.
But, again, this mainly falls because Pro has the BOP and has not proven this.
"Remember your 2nd or 3rd grade teacher? If she was female, she would lose it and start screaming for no reason."
More anecdotal evidence, and this time an assertion -- of course, without any evidence!
I do remember my second and third grade teachers, both of whom were female. Neither of them behaved in this way.
"I once asked a woman what she did for a living and she went off on a 30 minute tantrum about how much she hated her boss. I once passed a woman and said excuse me and she said that wasn't 'polite'."
Of course, this is again unsubstantiated anecdotal evidnece (I'm sure you guys are getting tired of seeing me type this).
He can't prove this ever happened, but even if it did, here's the thing: so? How can we take two examples and apply that to all women? That's called a fallacy of composition, and it simply doesn't hold.
"It's like they are bi-polar. They can be normal one minute and then BAM!, psycho the next!."
Once again, there is no evidence for this whatsoever, nor has he gone through the effort of trying to prove it.
"They say they want to marry nice guys, but date bad boys."
Again, this is anecdotal, and even if it were true, it doesn't prove that they are "insane."
Not to mention there is quite a bit of ambiguity as to what you define as a "nice guy." Why should a woman date a guy simply by virtue of the fact that he is nice? Why are you making the assumption that women are only opting not to date such a guy because he is nice?
Also, even Pro's statement doesn't hold up because it's possible to "date bad boys," but marry nice guys. So, once again, even Pro's own arguments -- even if we give him a massive benefit of the doubt -- do not hold.
"They ask stupid questions and want lies for answers.
"Does this make me look fat?"
Ok, this has simply devolved into an attack on women.
I shouldn't even need to address this, but I will.
First, how is that a stupid question?
Second, how do you know that all women "ask stupid questions?"
Third, where's your evidence?
Fourth, how does this make them "insane?"
Fifth, where's your evidence?
"They assume you can read their minds and get pissed if you can't."
Once again, he has not provided any evidence.
"They can't just own one cat."
Well, this happens to be factually inaccurate because some women don't own even a single cat. Even if they did, how would this make them "insane?"
"And yes, believing in an invisible sky daddy isn't rational. Their whole lives are based on faith, not logic."
Finally, we move on to the only argument of mine that Pro didn't drop!
This is nothing but an assertion on top of an assertion. He asserts that religion is incompatible with logic and that, by virtue of being religious, you live your entire life based on faith rather than logic.
He has not backed this up even in the slightest, and I really only need to provide a single counterexample.
How about the brilliant scientist Francis Collins who mapped the human genome? He's a very intelligent man, yet he's religious, but separates his religion from his scientific inquiry.
Once again, Pro's arguments do not hold.
Here is how I believe voting ought to proceed:
Conduct: Pro plagiarized and has issued nothing but ad hominem attacks on women, so I believe this should go to me.
Sources: All he did was plagiarize and cite loosely related links without actually reading them, so this should again go to me.
Arguments: He conceded by admitting that there is no data backing up what he is saying, and I've refuted all of his arguments, so this should go to me.
Spelling/Grammar: I guess this could be a tie.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: This was pretty clear cut. Pro tried tried to play semantics with the definition at hand and con was properly able to refute it. The question of this debate was whether or not women could be insane which pro could have won, or whether they are categorically insane which is what he chose to defend. Con was able to show that most of pros links were broken. In addition to this, none of pros initial case has any validity about why women are insane. Con was able to properly refute it and pro was left in the next round saying "well they just are insane". This was a very clear win for con
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.