Women are insane

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."ConclusionPro 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.