The average girl is less into music than the average boy

This is the last round, so I will make my final rebuttals based and then draw up a conclusion. 1) Con's song choices Con makes a very strange claim here. She says that girls can listen to music with less 'decorations' as well. In the opening round I have stated that neither of us can prove anything about girls in general, so we would solely talk about her here - compared to the average boy. Now, although her sister seems to enjoy music with less decoration, the bands named are only liked for subjective reasons. Melodically, they provide music of low quality. Agreed that both boys and girls can like these bands for subjective reasons. The difference between boys and girls is that boys would be capable of listening to piano music (with nothing else). Would girls too? I don't know. But you, a female who claims to be a music lover, seem to not care about the melodically good song I posted that had close to no decorations. I'd say that counts as a fair argument to prove my case: You are less into music than the average boy. Con makes another claim, saying that there would be just as much girls in bands as there are boys. I'm talking about professional musicians, and her claim is quite controversial because practically every band we can think of would have at least as many boys as girls - if there even are girls. Con would have to show statistics here, to support such a controversial claim, but none exist because it's simply not true. 2) The discussion about lyrics We should not even be discussing this as I clearly defined lyrics as decorations in the opening round - which my opponent must have read. I will however discuss this further because, should the voter blindly believe her and ignore my opening statement as well, they will most likely vote for her. So, lyrics are decorations because they do not in any way present a melody. They are written down words, created to match an already-existing rhythm. Even if you write your lyrics before you write the music, your lyrics will still have to match a rhythm in your head. Therefore, the lyrics follow up to the music. The musical part in them, however, can be easily replaced with an instrument: vocals can turn into a solo and the same melody & rhythm can still be contained. Nothing changes to the music, but it simply loses the decoration of a vocal and of lyrics. This explanation refutes all claims by con. Lyrics are not important to music. To further clarify to the voters: Con has shown her love for lyrics, which is normal. She loves poetry and touching words. However, that proves she does not love the music. The idea I've had is that girls tend to pay more attention to these 'decorations' which is exactly why Con defends them with all her heart. 3) her replies to my questions. 1. My opponent claims I have changed the question. That is not true at all. She thinks I asked what she thinks the best song of all time is, in a subjective way, while this is what I really asked originally: " Find a song, that you would objectively name the "best song of all time". Nor me or the voters should judge you if this song is not to our agreement. You'll really have to explain as to why this song should appeal to EVERYONE. " The reasons given as to why her song should appeal to everyone were lyrics again. This one should be self-explanatory by now. 2. LIke I said, I tried to trick you by asking that question. I expected a list, like the one you gave me. What I was specifically going to look for, was if you would mention "lying on my bed" or something like that. But okay, we can drop this question as your answer didn't really give a new perspective in this debate. 3. Why can't I get your opinion on this song? Now I have to drop this question as well since I'm not going to see your reply before drawing conclusions. Besides, the question was not altered. The idea behind the quastion was to get your opinion on a song with as little decorations as possible. Sadly, you have avoided this question twice so I cannot use it. 4. She has misinterpreted the point of my questions entirely. I asked them to see and show the voter how you looked at music first-hand, not to actually question you on knowledge. Neither of the songs can be proven better than the other, so that really wasn't the point. I put a lot of thought into this question and it served for 2 purposes: 1. Will my opponent notice that the original has more melody lines than the cover? 2. Will my opponent pick the song based on better vocals & singing with more 'feeling' in it? The conclusion I drew from this is that you did not notice the reduced amount of melody lines, and that you again picked the song based on decorations. To remind you again, this has NOTHING to do with originality. What conclusions can we draw here? Personally I really enjoyed this debate. For one, all the evidence can be found in the debate itself: through the means of questions, and thanks to my admirable opponent who replied honestly to each and every one of them, you can see all the evidence simply by scrolling up! All of what I say is now empirically proven by her own words. Any voter who was interested enough to read this debate will conclude that my opponent has proven herself to be a big fan of songs in the subjective way: each and every time, she admired songs for lyrics, personal association to the songs and other 'decorations'. However, she spent way less time describing her love for a song's rhythm or its melody. As I defined music as "rhythm and melody" in the first round, we can say that she's not really into music as much as she is into 'decorations'. In fact, she didn't even notice the melodies being gone in the 'lovesong' - question. I believe I have succesfully shown what I initially meant to do: my opponent is not into music as much as she thinks she is. When I asked for her objectively picking a "best song", she was unable to praise a song created by the "top dogs" and when I specifically asked for reasons why her song should appeal to everyone, she gave lyrics as the only reason. This was her best chance to truly show her quality in analysing music and her true chance to say, for example, "bohemian rhapsody by queen could be seen as the best song since its melody appeals to everyone, it has a complicated and changing rhythm and plenty of variety". However, she was unable to do such a thing. She also condemns good melodies if they become too repetetive throughout the song and judged the artists for being too "uncreative" if they were to do that. However, a true music lover wouldn't be as critical and simply appreciate the good melody for what it is. Ofcourse such songs aren't the very best around, but the melody being repeated does not make the melody any worse. Massive effect deserves all the attention it gets. MY CASE IS FULLY PROVEN In the first round, I made a daring prediction: a girl would accept this debate, and I would show that she paid more attention to decorations than to music. I let this girl show her love for songs, left her to speak freely and honestly, and she did exactly that. If she would say anything new in her last round, any new arguments or altering her perspective on the debate, it should result in a win for me because that would be like destroying evidence that she provided earlier. I advise her to just draw a conclusion as well. Enjoyed the debate alot!