Males are superior to females

Thank you Con, for this great debate. I cannot wait for your final argument. My opponent still does not understand the dangers of providing specific examples. I will now attempt to show him just how faulty the logic is. Let's say that I were to make the statement: "Fish are more wet than cars." If Con were to provide examples of that one guy who drove his car into the ocean and that one lady who drove into a lake, and expected that to suffice as evidence that cars can be as wet or even more wet than fish, it would be absolutely ridiculous because those are extreme examples that do not properly represent their group. Similarly, by using extreme, specifc examples, such as the Onna Bugeisha, Con is doing just this. Physical 1. This is covered by my above specificity examples. 2. Con claims that his statistic is not American-specific, but he states himself that it is with the statement: "Just talking about America, here, a test shows that more men are obese compared to women." However, I did end up finding that women are, on average, more obese than men [1]. Even though my opponent has to cherry-pick illnesses that men are more susceptible to, seeing as men are more resilient to diseases and conditions, he failed to find one so far. Introducing any in the final round of debate would be unfair, seeing as I cannot rebut it. 3. My opponent makes the outlandish claim that "a man and a woman who don't exercise, ever, will likely perform similarly." This statement is completely untrue because men still have more testosterone than females, making them innately stronger, not through training, but rather through normal growth and development [2]. Because males are stronger, faster and more resistant than females genetically, and not necessarily through conditioning, they are physically superior to females. Mental Con's case in mental still lacks much more than specific, cherry-picked examples I discussed earlier. Still I will go through each of his points. 4. IQ is definitely not moot. Although it cannot test for EVERY kind of intelligence, IQ does test for a lot of things, all of which make one a "more intelligent person." These things include spatial, mathematical, language and memory (important as it disproves Con's grade point) ability. [3]. All of which are important. As for bringing up specific examples, refer to my opening argument. 5. My opponent makes the assertion that gender roles did "lower the numbers of great females." However, I refuted this point in my first argument with my patents statistics. These days, women are no longer confined or, at the very least, confined MUCH less than a few decades ago. It is true that women are receiving much more college education than a few decades ago. It is true that women are becoming mathematicians, scientists, and engineers much more often than a few decades ago. And if women were brought up to the same or, at the very least , very similar societal standing, why have their patent numbers and mathematical, scientific, and engineering accomplishments not risen with their societal standing [4]? If their oppression is really to blame for their lack of contributions, why haven't the contributions risen with their societal liberties? 6. If the Con would take a look at this list explaining the top 15 greatest and most famous composers of all time [5], he'd notice Beethoven, Bach and Mozart make the list as the top three. The rest of the list is comprised completely of males. Of all the things to challenge in my debate, even winning this contention would not serve a great purpose. 7. Con claims that I make opinionated statements, yet he draws a significant psychological and mental conclusion without using any sources. Unless he can provide evidence for his claims or reveal to us that he is indeed an expert himself, I believe his claim is moot. I have tried to find evidence that grades are more indicative of intelligence and cognition than IQ tests, but failed to find any. I challenge Con to put money where his mouth is. Con sums up his argument with a statement that I have hereby reaffirmed. Hopefully, Con will understand and maybe even refute my patent / contributions argument before he claims that society is to blame. I rest my case with the fact that since males are born with higher IQs, makeup experts in practically every field and have made substantially more contributions to all areas than women then and now, they are inherently mentally superior. Emotional Con's debates are very expansive in this section. I will discuss them one by one. 1. Con just did not read the article cited on this one. It specifically states that "the lifetime risk of major depression in women is about 20% to 26%, compared to about 8% to 12% for men." And in case Con decides to attack the word "major," major depression occurs to clinical, chronic depression not triggered by traumatic experiences. There is clearly a 2:1 ratio. Point to men. 2. I apologize to Con for using an outdated source. Here is a newer source published in 2006 that says the same thing [6]. I do not, however, believe I used semantics. After reading my opponent's source, I realized that we were both approaching the situation from the wrong angle. Women do not express their aggression with violence, but rather harassment. Therefore, it's illogical to look at it just from a violent standpoint. Point to men (because women are still more aggressive). Point to men. 3. I have shown that women are more dependent on two different groups, parents and partners. Both are economical, but in this time and age, dependence is measured economically. If one has money, one can get whatever they need. It is unnecessary to show dependence with anything more than money because money can get one anything. However, just for kicks, I will say women have a stronger dependence on drugs. Women are twice as likely to get addicted to them [7]. I hope that helps, but I really should not need anything more than financial dependence. Point to men. 4. Con has challenged only three of my points. Two remain uncontested, but all, with the exception of apathy vs. empathy, are still in my favor, keeping the count at 5 : 1, in man's favor. Seeing as men generally are more emotionally stable, they are emotionally superior to females. Conclusion Con insists that a few extreme examples is more than enough to defeat my entire debate, but this is wrong. What he has shown is that a few outstanding females have been on par with a few males. Unfortunately, he still has failed to show or at least to tarnish my argument that males are superior to females. This general statement cannot be supported or opposed by specific examples, but rather large, encompassing statistics. I ask that Con try using more such statistics, but at the same time to refrain from adding in new arguments as part of his closing. Simply because males are superior physically, mentally and emotionally innately and genetically, males are superior to females. Finally, I ask the audience to vote for Pro only after reading the entire debate and to not base their votes on preexisting biases. Remember, Pro does not have to successfully win all three points, but rather at least two of the three. Thank you for reading. I know hand it off to the Con. Sources 1. http://whqlibdoc.who.int...(part1).pdf 2. http://www.news-medical.net... 3. http://science.howstuffworks.com... 4. Article: Why Don't Women Patent by the National Bureau of Economic Research 5. http://listverse.com... 6. http://www.melissainstitute.org... 7. http://www.livescience.com...