Boys are better than girls

Thank you for this debate. This is not a politically correct debate. It was never going to be. Note that the position I am supporting does not necessarily reflect my personal views. This is a debate. 1. My position Although it's not clear what my position should be, I accept the higher burden, that is to demonstrate that men are in fact better than women. Let us keep in mind that the term "better" is very subjective and, when standing alone, meaningless. I will therefore use it in the context of the criteria set out by my opponent himself. 2. The arguments a. Academic achievement My opponent claims that girls outperform boys in school performance. That is true. However, this out-performance is marginal only and is not caused by girl having higher intelligence. In fact, it is boys who have a (marginally, again) higher IQ. I quote from one relevant study: "There were no significant differences in IQ measured at ages 8 and 9, and there was a slight tendency for males to score higher than females on most of these tests. " . http://www.acer.edu.au... What then causes girls to perform better at school? According to the same study, it is behavioural issues in the classroom. Boys tend to be more disruptive and exhibit more antisocial behaviours. Of course, this is no reflection on any inherent quality of boys. It simply means that our educational structure is more girl-friendly. The study itself suggests a number of ways to solve the problem. But the important matter here is that the problem rests with the education system and not with boys. The fact of the matter is that men have a higher IQ than women; they are actually smarter! I quote: "In a study accepted for publication by the British Journal of Psychology, Dr. Paul Irwing (Manchester Business School, Senior Lecturer in Organizational Psychology) and Prof. Richard Lynn (University of Ulster, Professor Emeritus) conclude that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests. The study also found that men outnumbered women in increasing numbers as intelligence levels rise. There were twice as many with IQ scores of 125, a level typical for people with first-class degrees. When scores rose to 155, a level associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman. " . http://en.wikinews.org... 5.5 male geniuses to one female genius. What does that tell us? And what is more important? Having better grades in school or being smarter? Of course it is the latter. Smarter people do better in life. They manage their affairs better. Boys are smarter than girls. Girls do better at school because schools provide an education that caters for girls better than it does for boys. They do this by failing to address attention-span differences and to provide a classroom environment more conducive to male learning. b. Backbone of society My opponent then claims that women are the backbone of our society. Why? Because they look after kids and many are often mothers. They provide a clean house. Well, my opponent seems to be stereotyping here. Is he suggesting that women clean more than men? Or that women have more children than men? Or that women's contribution to providing for a house outweighs that of men? The fact of the matter is that in most family units there is a man and a woman. Each of the two has his/her roles. Often one will be a bread-winner (working, providing income) while the other will look after the children and cook and clean. In the modern society, it is in fact increasingly more often the man who stays at home and looks after children. But even where that's not the case, how does this support any claim that the woman's role is more important than that of the man? It simply does not. c. History My opponent's next claim is that without women we still would be in the stone ages and wouldn't have won many world wars. Firstly, the stone ages argument. It is clearly incorrect. The truth is that without women we wouldn't exist at all! Neither would we exist without men. Humans are still in existence only because men and women have been consistently getting together, having sexual intercourse and then children. But have women had a greater effect on scientific and technological progress than men? Clearly not. By far most inventions are attributable to men. The following website shows some 150 top inventions of all time. A quick glance at it shows that only about one in 10 inventions was done by a woman. Yes! It is men who have always been responsible for progress. Our science and technology are as advanced as they are thanks to men and not to women. My opponent's second argument is that without women we wouldn't have won many of the world wars. Well how many world wars have there been to begin with? I only know of two. And just who is it that has won the wars? Clearly someone won them and someone else lost them. One might then equally say that without women we wouldn't have LOST "some of the world wars". Yes, of course when men went to war, women would stay behind and assist in production of munitions and keeping on top of things back home. But primarily it has been the men who in fact went to fight wars. Wars are won mostly via strategic and tactical battlefront decisions and not by staying back "keeping fort". And it has almost invariably (with really a couple of exceptions) been men who have been the great generals, leaders and fighters. You can have a war without someone staying and keeping fort. But you can't run a war without a soldier on the battleground. My opponent then seeks to rely on the Amazons as an example of a female-dominated society. And what were the Amazons? "a nation of all-female warriors in Classical and Greek mythology. ", says Wiki (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). It's mythology. It's a story. There's no historical confirmation that such a thing even existed. And if it did, what happened to it? Clearly it failed to develop a modern society, failed to conquer anything of any significance and failed TO SURVIVE. There are no Amazons today. My opponent's final argument is that scientists have found a way to transform a female egg into a male sperm cell. I haven't heard of this and my opponent provides no sources. But assuming this is correct, how does this further my opponent's case? How does this mean that women are better than men? My opponent says that this could mean that men would no longer be necessary to reproduce. Note that this technique isn't something that a woman can undergo unaided. It requires technology. It doesn't reflect on the quality of women versus that of men. And of course my opponent's point would only stand if men's only role were to reproduce. Clearly it's not, not by far. 3. Conclusion Where does all this leave us? Well, going by my opponent's own criteria, we must conclude that it's in fact men who are better than women. Men are smarter (have a higher IQ), men have contributed much more to science, technology and progress than women have, and men are the ones who have been fighting the (and winning) wars. But I still love women. I think they rock. And of course, this is only a debate. We fight it on evidence and argument, not on personal convictions.