Men are smarter than women

This may be a bit too radical for some voters looking for stock. I already don't expect to win because long debates generally go un-read, and the winner is usually the one that takes the less radical position, or is the one that goes second, my opponent meets both of these criteria. I'd like to point out my opponents demonstration of his own hubris and predispositions towards women. In his last speech he states that, "Danielle already covered this, but I'd like to cover it again. " As if he is confident in his own ability to outperform the inadequacies of Danielle's previous introspection. It is with this symbolic gesture that I believe there is a true unshakable perception of male dominance. He undermines the plight of women without even realizing what he is doing. Even by taking the debate as a male he undermines the ability of women to defend themselves. This is why Men will always dominate women, even in a world where the indoctrinated egalitarian agent, defends the disenfranchised, he further perpetuates their disenfranchisement. So the voter is left with a choice either to vote for the truly honest misogynistic or the truly dis-honest misogynist, but either way proving misogyny as the appropriate behavior. To many this may seem like a purely ad hominem waste of time, but I believe even more radically that it is an argument for male superiority. He is clearly doing a more thorough job then Danielle especially by supplementing her previous arguments with his own augmented ideology. CONSIDER THIS OFFENSE The idea that women are "socially intelligent" means absolutely nothing in terms of the traditional criterion on which we measure intelligence. Women may be good at recognizing facial expressions but in terms of a scientific understanding of the way in which social relationships actually materialize is much more prominently developed by men than women. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud, Lacan, Foucault, Althusser, Zizek, Badiou etc. etc. To say that women are more socially intelligent has no more merit than to say that men are more athletically intelligent. On mathematical intelligence (Both Danielle and Bluesteel) The article never states that women are equaled in the field of mathematics but rather just explains the reasons why they are worse. Then they try to say that when the antagonisms against women are unrecognized, women perform better then when they are recognized. .. . Not equal to men just better then some other women (. http://jezebel.com...) On multi-tasking "The ladybrain actually shows no more cross-talk than the dudebrain. And, more damningly, women's corpora callosa (Latin: still good for something after all these years) aren't even bigger than men's. According to Fine, early studies simply overgeneralized from small sample sizes. " (. http://jezebel.com...) Furthermore On G-factor "Studies with large representative national samples from Spain, Denmark, and the United States, as well as meta-analyses of a large number of published studies throughout the world, all conclude that men on average are slightly but significantly more intelligent than women, by about 3-5 IQ points. So this has now become the new (albeit tentative) consensus in intelligence research. " (. http://www.psychologytoday.com...) This research is obvious. But my opponent tries to show that when the "g-factor" is isolated the results become more equalized and even favor women. However according to "Spearman's law of diminishing returns"(. http://en.wikipedia.org...(psychometrics)), "SLDR predicts that the g factor will account for a smaller proportion of individual differences in cognitive tests scores at higher scores on the g factor. " Meaning that the higher a persons standard IQ the lower results the person would have on a g-factor test. "Tucker-Drob (2009) found that a general factor accounted for approximately 75% of the variation in seven different cognitive abilities among very low IQ adults, but only accounted for approximately 30% of the variation in the abilities among very high IQ adults. " This would obviously account for the leveling rendered by the G-factor test seeing as how men (as my opponent has conceded) outweigh women 15 to 1 in terms of high IQ scores. The less variance noticed by the test would undermine their cognitive ability of high IQ men and homogenize those differences with men much lower (120 IQ and under). And to mask the true genius of high IQ scorers would betray the merit of intelligence. On "cosmos" and "Sexual Phantasms" When referring to job loss, immediately after the part that my opponent quotes the article reads, "This could be because male-dominated fields have been hit the hardest, like manufacturing and finance. " This has very little to do with intelligence and is simply an economic phenomenon. The fact that men take longer to go to school and have less degrees has nothing to do with intelligence seeing as how the resolved is not "who works harder men or women" and on financial portfolio's it is because women take less risks (as stated on the cosmos article a sentence or two later) and are more likely to put there money in reliable long term stocks, eg. Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, etc. while men are more likely to take risks that yield higher rewards. Instead of making me pick through all of these pseudo-empiric's which have no direct correlations to intelligence (economic, risk taking, work ethic) I'd like to get back to the debate. Furthermore the fact that men have more diverse and longer sexual fantasies is still not correlated to intelligence, in the same way women talking to other women more about there petty and tedious problems is not indicative of intelligence but there incurable need for childish attention, which is why they relate better to children in the first place (which in turn is why they're elementary or middle school teachers up until higher academic levels like college where men then take over. ) CONSIDER THIS A TURN THAT GARNERS A FURTHER BURDEN OF PROOF. On religion I'm not calling religious people stupid, just women. But I don't if this argument was very well thought out seeing as how you make the assumption that men always produce male offspring? And because smart men can't reproduce there will only be smart female babies? I feel like mis-understood something. On patriarchy, David Pearce is hardly an expert, he is purely speculating. Even still peace is almost synonymous with a static tedious "herd" existence. Where people (women in this case) waste there lives with meaningless distractions until they reflect on their humdrum existence and realize they never really lived at all. Men have a higher existential intelligence in this case. Conclustion Do women tend to think that men are smarter than they are? "Surprisingly, [both] men and women perceive men being smarter across generations. Both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers. " "What about the kids? If there are children, [both] men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters. " (. http://blog.chron.com...) The fact that intelligence is not only tested better for boys, but that the people which know them best perceive them to be also more intelligent, is pretty thorough proof that Men are obviously more intelligent then women, not only on a standardized dehumanized level, but also in terms of the most intimate personal relationships that humanity can manufacture. To turn your back on this analysis would be a horrible mis-understanding and betrayal of the facts.