Males are superior to females

I will now just use direct quotes from my opponent, then attempt to touch on some of the issues he feels I haven't properly addressed. I apologize to my opponent for any misunderstandings or confusion on my behalf, and I accept any point loss as a result. 1. "My opponent does not quite address the speed, strength and health advantage of males" By providing the Onna Bugeisha, I have nullified that this is an incredible advantage. After all, if Males were just completely superior, where would females come in to warfare at all? Also, to refute the general assertion that males are overall healthier, I encourage my opponent to read this: . http://www.nlm.nih.gov... Speed and Strength are mostly out of development. I encourage my opponent to consider this pure laziness on my part, but one simply isn't faster or stronger without development. There are men faster than women, women faster than men. There are women stronger than men, men stronger than women. 2. "Con brings up an American obesity statistic. Unfortunately, this does not apply because it is America specific. " No, it is not an American Specific argument, but the burden is on you to refute this with worldwide statistics, you aren't really refuting my point, you're simply stating that because I didn't provide a worldwide example, this is null and void. I also mentioned the midlife health hit, but since I had lost my source, I accept that you didn't really acknowledge it. 3. "males are still physically superior to females due to their strength, speed, toughness, which have not been addressed. " As I stated before, this is out of development. A man and a woman who don't exercise, ever, will likely perform similarly. My opponent claims that all males are inherently tougher, stronger, and faster than all females, and therefore, they are superior. Physique comes via development, and I have addressed health which, I feel, equalizes the two, to the point where neither are superior. Again, I apologize if it seems I merely skimmed over it. 4 "Con disregards my IQ point saying that I contradict myself when in reality I do not. " You brought up IQ as a valid point, then turned and said that it doesn't represent 'other intelligences'. Other intelligences outnumber the few categories IQ tests. Therefore, the IQ point is moot, and it was then on me to show where females have excelled, or done equal things to men, which I felt needed specific examples, instead of a broad "Well, females have contributed, too. " Which would have been completely pointless against your broad statistics regarding patents. 5 "Con again uses specific examples to try and undermine thousands of years of influential men. I never made the claim that all men are superior to all women. Therefore, examples of a few influential women does not help his argument. I could just as easily name influential men" You have failed to acknowledge that females being confined to old gender roles does indeed lower the numbers of great females. I provided a few that "Broke the rules" of their time period, so to speak. You claim that because men, who had a societal advantage, were more numerous in achievement, that they are superior. Societal structure has everything to blame in this case, and it has nothing to do with inherent intelligence. 6 "As for his list of composers, none of those are noteworthy when compared to musical geniuses such as Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart. " That is a matter of opinion, not fact. 7 "Grades, and college admissions, have nothing to do with mental superiority. Men are still innately more intelligent. " I disagree. Grades come from many factors, such as memory, and one's ability to learn, and memorize, and finally, adapt. While not the best measure of overall intelligence, it is better than IQ tests, which cater to specific categories that my opponent has outlined. I have showed examples of women who have done noteworthy things in the fields he provided, or "Other intelligence" fields. Overall, women being repressed throughout the course of history isn't a cause to believe they are simply less intelligent, my opponent's points are moot, and I consider this a stalemate (Neither are inherently superior. ) Mental: This deserves its own section. 1. "Con makes the assertion that since both men and women get depressed, they are equal. This is very wrong. Women get depressed twice as often as men, making them much more pessimistic. Point to man. " My opponent changes what his original point stated, that women are twice as LIKELY to get depressed, this doesn't mean that if there is 100 depressed men, there has to be two hundred depressed women. He uses a cheap word change to imply that there is a 1:2 depression ratio (Male to Female). This point is moot. 2. My opponent provides an aggression study, that is not a near-current study, and cannot be used as fact. I'd also like to note that upon proper refutation, my opponent used semantics (The very same thing he forbade), to change the rules mid-debate. The point still stands that men are more violent, which was the initial point I had to refute. Point to women. 3. "I do not have to prove that men are more dependent than women in every situation" Which is not what I meant to imply, but it feels like, what my opponent accused me of, cherry picking. By using only two examples on a very similar basis (economical), my opponent has failed to show that overall, men are more dependent. The equivalent to this would be to say that since a certain soft drink is preferred by a single age group, that it is the best soft drink overall. I don't need to refute this as long as my opponent can not meet the burden of proof. I challenge my opponent to show different varieties of statistical dependence, I feel it cannot be used as evidence otherwise. 4. "As you can see, the standing remains at 5 to 1, in man's favor. " This has been properly discussed, and is refuted. Women are still at a stalemate, if not slightly superior, to men in emotional health. Opponent's conclusion "Con has provided many singular counterexamples, but unfortunately they are insignificant in this debate. " I disagree. I didn't need to provide a lot, but I only needed to show that women have been superior, or on-par, with men. By providing a few examples, I have showed this. "I challenge him to find statistics that show how the general, average woman is superior to the general, average man. " I did this with the grades point, while my opponent believes that this isn't a proper measure, but has truly failed to explain why. So, since I have used averages, according to the line quoted above, have I not refuted successfully that women are on par or slightly superior to men? Conclusion: I have still done my job. I have, at the very least, refuted men being inherently superior physically, since what my opponent mentions are mostly refined out of concerted development. Mentally, my opponent only uses one quote to attempt and refute my claims. Grades, while largely irrelevent, do also come from exams, which tests one's memory, and one's ability to adapt and utilize learned items. This is a general statistic, which my opponent requested. By cherry picking and giving specifics, I feel I have shown that men are credited more discoveries, cultural pieces, etc. Only due to social conditions, and not some automatic, gender-specific ability. Finally, my opponent has changed rules, and used semantics, in order to mold more arguments in to his favor.