Males are superior to females

REBUTTAL 2a. PhysicalPro asserts that men and women are equally responsible for reproduction and thus his athletic ability argument still stands.My counter-argument:1. It is false that men are equally responsible for reproduction as women.2. Women are healthier and live longer than men.Males do not play the same part in reproduction as females. Men and women are equally needed for conception but it is only the woman who is actually responsible for reproduction. Men do not carry a fetus or give birth. Furthermore, they do not give suckle after the infant is born. Pro's reply to my argument regarding nursing, that a father is needed to raise a child, does not concern physical attributes.The woman is of a much more important role in the continuation of the species than the man and it is due to her physical attributes. This makes women physically superior to men.It's irrelevant but I'd also like to add that I didn't have a father, I graduated from high school two years early and have no record of violent crime. The president of the United States, Barack Obama, also grew up without a father.Even if men were as important to reproduction as women, it still does not prove than men are physically superior due to athletic ability. Women are physically superior in other ways as well, namely health. In the US, women have an average life-span of 79 years, compared to 72 years for men and in many countries the difference is as much as 10 years. Centenarians, those who live past 100 years, are essentially all women by a 9 to 1 margin [1]. There is a big difference, healthwise between men are women. Men are 5 times more likley to have heart disease and are also at greater risk for cancer, high blood-pressure and diabetes [2].I have reaffirmed that Pro's agument is negated.b. mentalPro asserts that it does not matter that height is the factor causing one gender to score higher on IQ tests, since the fact remains that men are taller than women. He asserts that grades measure knowledge, not intelligence.He asserts that there have been more famous men throughout various feilds of intellgence than women.My counter argument:1. It does in fact matter that height is the deciding factor, rather than gender.2. Pro did not confirm that grades do not show higher intelligence and he concedes that women have more knowledge than men.3. Men have different motivations than women that account for different areas of success.The fact that height is the deciding factor in intelligence difference between the genders and not the gender itself plays a great importance to the issue of which is mentally superior. Pro could justifiably add the argument that men are taller and thus score higher IQs to his arguments on physical ability but could not do so with mental ability. The fact that women score higher on IQ tests than men, when all proper adjustments are made, demonstrates that a woman's mind is superior to a man's mind in that subject. Statistcal observations on any matter whatsoever should never be concluded unless the proper adjustments have been made or else misconceptions will develope, as they have with the IQ/gender issue.Pro did not make a sufficient case for why higher grades would not demonstrate a higher intelligence. This needs a source and more expanded argument. Further, he concedes that women, by having better grades, makes them knowledgeable. He also implies that women may study more than men. I say that this is a mentally superior attribute. I concede that there are more famous men in many fields of intelligence than women. However, I assert that this is due to a different set of motivations. I also assert that these motivational differences do not make men superior. Men are much more likely to adopt obsessions. It is these obsessions that can compel them into fame in certain subjects. It can also get them into a load of trouble. This is why men are twice as likely to have substance abuse as women [3]. Men are much more likely to be compulsive gamblers [4]. Men have strong emotional impulses to conquer and over-power, which requires fixation. Sometimes this can be beneficial if the desire is channeled in a productive way such as excelling in a field of intelligence. But most of the time it is not. Most of time these masculine impulses are the bedrock for the majority of destructive human forces, namely in the form of violence. Women do not have these same impulses. Rather, feminine impulses are mostly centered around social construction. As I have already pointed out, women excel above men in their social intelligence. Women's more socially constructive tendencies are evidenced by their increased mental faculties for things like communication and empathy. Research suggests that men only use half their brain when listening and understanding what is being communicated, whereas women use both sides and have 4 times as many neurons between the two sides of the brain as men [5]. More research suggests that women have increased brain faculties for empathy, making it easier for them to understand the emotions of others [6]. These different motivations that women have cannot be channeled destructively as men's can. The motivations of men are two-sided, as women's are not.I reaffirm that my opponent's argument is negated.c. emotionalPro asserts that women are as violent as men and that, regardless, violence is not a factor in emotional stability.My counter-argument:1. Men are significantly and indisputably more violent than women.2. Violence is very important to the evaluation of emotional stability.Pro makes the odd assertion that I did not make any link between the military and violence, as if I would need to. I will retort that the purpose that militaries exist is for the use of violence. It is estimated that around 137 million people died in only the two World Wars combined, a fraction of the total [7]. A toll almost single handedly initiated by men.Pro brings up the fact that more children are killed by women. This can be accounted for by the fact that women tend to spend much more time at home with children than men. Pro asserts that the degree of violence has nothing to do with emotional health. Medical professionals believe otherwise. Measurement of general emotional stability, devised by psychologists, is separated into 6 dimensions; Pessimism vs. Optimism, Apathy vs. Empathy, Dependence vs. Autonomy, Anxiety vs Calm and Aggression vs. Tolerance [8]. I have demonstrated that women are more empathetic and less aggressive than men. However, Pro claims that women have higher anxiety than men and that this factor alone is enough to account for the degree emotional stability. Isn't it curious then that men are 4 times as likely to commit suicide as women [9]?I reaffirm that my opponents argument is negated.SOURCES1. http://www.news.harvard.edu...2. http://www.ncahs.nsw.gov.au...3. http://www.health-mind-body.com...4. http://www.personalityresearch.org...5. http://findarticles.com...6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...7. http://en.wikipedia.org...8. http://www.industrialpsychiatry.org...9. http://www.sciencedaily.com...