Males are superior to females

Thank you, Con, for your very quick rebuttal. Introduction Seeing as I have the burden of proof, it is unnecessary for Con to do anything more than refute my points. Unfortunately, I do not believe that Con has satisfied this condition. He states that I use a very "tunnel-visioned" approach. However, my opponent uses specific examples to try to disprove my general, applicable facts and statistics. Physical My opponent does not quite address the speed, strength and health advantage of males. He instead uses specific examples such as "obesity" and "Onna Bugeisha" in an attempt to overwhelm my argument. 1. It is true that women are the only gender capable of giving birth, but men are the only gender capable of inseminating an egg. Without women, it is true that the species could not continue, but without men, the species could still not continue. Although the woman plays a bigger role in the continuation, both are necessary parts, which puts them at equal footing. 2. Con brings up an American obesity statistic. Unfortunately, this does not apply because it is America specific. I am not arguing American males are superior to American females. For the first time, my opponent uses too specific of an example. If one is to look at global statistics (I tried to find some, but was unable), it is quite possible that the results are different. 3. For the second time, Con brings up specific examples when he brings up women with "strength and agility." Such cherry-picked examples does little in discussion about such a broad and general topic. Because my opponent's examples are not applicable to the female race as whole due to his non-representative examples, males are still physically superior to females due to their strength, speed, toughness, which have not been addressed. Mental Once again, my opponent uses very specific examples for his argument. But before, he disregards my IQ point. 1. Con disregards my IQ point saying that I contradict myself when in reality I do not. I bring up the importance of IQ tests as a quantitative way of comparing males and females. I also point out that IQ does not measure every type of intelligence. That does not mean IQ tests are not important. It just means that IQ is not everything. 2. 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: Xerxes, Galileo, and Watson and Crick, all men who gave the women listed purpose. As for his list of composers, none of those are noteworthy when compared to musical geniuses such as Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart. 3. Finally, Con points out that women get higher grades, but grades have nothing to do with intelligence. Whereas IQ measures intelligence "whereas report card grades assess competencies determined more by self-control than by intelligence[1]." Grades, and college admissions, have nothing to do with mental superiority. Men are still innately more intelligent. Because my opponent still does a lot of cherry-picking, I still feel that he has failed to negate any of my points. His first generally applicable statistic, the one about grades, has been negated. Emotional Con tries a wide range of tactics here to defeat most of my points, but these tactics are very weak. 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. 2. Con makes the assertion that women have more things on their plate making them more stressed. This may be true, but the fact remains, if you read the source closely, that they are more susceptible to stress and have lower stress tolerances. Wherever the stress comes from, they feel more stress than a man would feel. Point to man. 3. Both Con and I make the mistake of confusing violence and aggression when, in reality, aggression can be both physical (violence) or psychological (harassment). Studies show that even though men are more often physically aggressive, women are more psychologically aggressive, even to the point where their aggression is harms oneself. The study concludes that women are overall more aggressive, although less violent [2]. Point to man. 4. Con fails to disprove my points, which still stand. Women are more likely to depend on their partner and parents than men are. I do not have to prove that men are more dependent than women in every situation, but just that women are more dependent than men, which I have attempted to show with two relevant examples. Con has failed to come up with any real reason why these two examples are not sufficient. Point to man. 5. Con has conceded this point. Point to man. 6. I have conceded this point. Point to woman. As you can see, the standing remains at 5 to 1, in man's favor. Conclusion Con has provided many singular counterexamples, but unfortunately they are insignificant in this debate. I challenge him to find statistics that show how the general, average woman is superior to the general, average man. Until then, I believe that the burden of proof is met that men are superior to women, seeing as they are superior physically, mentally, and emotionally. I now turn the debate over to the Con. Sources 1. http://www.sas.upenn.edu... 2. http://www.saylor.org...