Women are insane

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:http://www.inreview.com...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.Conclusion: 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.