Females are better people than males.

The misunderstandings have been cleared up for the most part. I am arguing that "females are not better persons than males," and this of course means that my objective is to 'prove' males are at least equal to females (in terms of morality, ethics, and empathy). The only flaw in this debate so far is that the end product will be a matter of opinion as to whether females are comparably better in their personhoods, thus I'm not sure if Pro's resolution can actually be proven. 'Personhood' doesn't entail a specific gender, but this debate is all about the Battle of the Sexes, ergo the title. I am battling on the side of males and debating why males are at least equal in personhood to females, but there is no way to do this without comparing the two genders specifically. I will proceed. Personhood is "The quality or condition of being an individual person. " Pro claims that this is different and does not include the traits of the physical body. I believe that the definition of this word does not exclude 'being strong or intelligent' and we should not assume that it does. For example, a main part of a males' personhood is identified by their abilities to think in a special way and to use physicality to their advantage, and this is something we can't just ignore. Being strong and intelligent influences the personalities of males. It seems as if Pro is using some rules of this debate to make my position impossible to 'prove,' and this is slightly unfair. Pro says "Incarnation and suicide rates. .. are not the results of people with good behaviors, as I defined. These things happened because males by their very nature tend to be more aggressive, less empathetic, more depressed, and less honest. " I have refuted this with a case for why these rates are higher. Just like you can't just blame the whole suicide on the person; I argue that it's up to the people around him to want the person to live. Also, behavior means nature. You can't separate these "traits" because they fall under the same category. My main rebuttal for Pro's prison argument is that it is not always a bad thing to fight for what they want because sometimes, it's morally right. For example, Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison for a conspiracy of him trying to overthrow the government. We could easily assume that the rates are because of men's more "violent" nature, but a more enlightened person would consider that that our society conditions men into a role which by nature is more likely to encourage violent or criminal behavior. Men have always been thought of as the "gentlemen" who defend and watch out for the women and children. Here are some proven statistics that might leave your jaw open: A black person is approximately 19% more likely to be convicted than a white person, but a man is approximately 165% more likely to be convicted than a woman. Overall, women get 40% shorter sentences than men. (see sources) This just shows how wacked up society may think of males as, and why we should be appreciating their efforts to protect us over the centuries. It is not Pro's objective to figure how females possess MORE empathy than men, because this simply cannot be proven as it is a matter of opinion (and a sweeping generalization). Instead Pro should try to prove how females' use of empathy is better as a whole than males, because males may not put this trait into use as much. Again, this is not always a bad thing. Empathy is the key to peace, and I have defended why males' nature does not require empathy as much as females,' even though they certainly do use empathy and care about their use when it comes to relationships. Pro claims that holding back feelings is dishonesty. She states, " If we lie to each other, we cannot understand one another. " Holding back their feelings actually keeps worry and pain away from others, whereas a typical female would have a whole group mourning and sympathizing alongside with her! Males save others from grief. "This entire debate is about which gender possess a better "personhood". People who can"t cope with depression/reality and kill themselves, are not "better people". " I have already refuted this argument. I know a lot of people who would agree with me on this; depression and suicide pulls are not a result of the person's "inability to cope," but rather the overwhelming events happening and no one else who's stepping up to be an example and help them through life. Pro cannot prove if females are "more stable emotionally" than males. Men wanting to follow through with their pulls towards suicide shows what males are like in personhood. They are indignant and passionate, empathetic and selfless because they don't want to give others the grief of having to deal with them, and these traits are all good, when suicide doesn't happen. When it does happen, it's not the male's fault, as I already proved. Conclusion: My case for why females are not better people than males is that females do NOT have more empathy, are NOT better at coping with life, and it IS better to have passionate fighters (males) rather than cry-baby arguers (females) to live united. And, I have again refuted Pro's arguments. . http://permutationofninjas.org... . http://www.forbes.com... . http://theprancingpapio.blogspot.com...