Men are smarter then women

I'm going proper. "So far he has failed to make any arguments in favor of the resolution." You wrote 10 paragraphs in response to the first statement, I must of made some rudimentary argument somewhere. She makes implicit assumptions about the framework of debate, that for some reason her position required absolutely no substance until the second round. An agnostic position would be that we are condemned by the lack of a concrete noumenal existence, to make any congenital assumptions about anything. Therefore, in order to affirm the previous position you would be forbidden by the nature of agnosticism, to present any evidence at all. But since you didn't do that, I'll assume your NEGATION of the resolution is indicative of your partiality, not agnosticism. But real talk. Although the link may have seemed vague, patriarchy is a clear representation of intellect. Perhaps the grandest example is most appropriate. Humanity is by no means the largest species in terms of brute force and the like. However I'm sure my opponent would agree that, insofar as we have obviously conquered the natural world, I.e. replacing bio-centrism with our own anthropocentric sentient in terms of polluting rivers, harvesting animals, and bringing our children to zoo's, it would be appropriate to assume we've "won". Women in the same respect are not subservient because of rugged manly sex appeal or sheer physical force. Rather as I've alluded to before assertiveness is a matter of intelligence. Furthermore in terms of I.Q. "the 98th percentile there are about twice more males than females, while at or above the 99.9th percentile there are about 15 times more males" (http://www.paulcooijmans.com...) On standardized testing. Collages aren't interested in in facial queues and even if the language part of the brain is bigger the male brain is still on average 10% larger. Moreover, (I'm jumping quite a bit) on your final paragraph before the conclusion. If on average taller people are more intelligent, and you yourself just, for some reason, acknowledged that men are ubiquitously taller then women, then how is it that you've gained any offense? Clearly that's an obvious turn. The purpose of standardized testing is to demonstrate your knowledge of a subject. How is this not indicative of intelligence especially when you yourself have said that women have better memorization skills. It seems that you think all the traditional agencies of knowledge demonstrations are somehow flawed as if they were designed for men. These tests weren't made to be subjective, men just happened to be better at them. Furthermore you've failed to present any actual demonstration of intellect by any woman, as if saying that they are better is enough regardless of how much better, as if men measure at 10 emotes (fake ways of measuring social intelligence), while women measure at 15 emotes. You can't make claims about disparities if there is no way to measure/prove them. On your religious oppression argument (I obviously did not give justice to the proper road map I gave earlier). Religion didn't invent misogyny, it's not as if people were synthetically conditioned to dominate women. Even if it was perpetuated by religion, I would say that the framers of the largest and most prolific institution in history were clever enough not only to convince the disenfranchised men into phantasms eternal life, happiness, or what have you; but to also convince the disenfranchised women into converting yet remaining disenfranchised. In, conclusion the fact that you've rejected the, traditionally accepted weighing mechanism for measuring intellect, one which colleges base an extremely large percent admission on, an offered flimsy justification for why the entire scholastic institution should reject the traditional aptitude, or even offered an alternative based on some provable measurable data (which I.Q. and SAT offer) then you should reject the opponents position. Secondly is the male biology being nearly implicit indications of higher intelligence (height, brain size). Thirdly, is the misogynistic religious abduction of female sentient. Fourthly would be the historical patriarchy in terms intellectual dominance, that being that intellect is the largest hegemonic resource, and is an obvious exhibition of authority. Fifthly, the resolution requires us to choose one perspective over another, and although there is no universal standard the revert back to, there is a historical objectivity favoring man. Music, art, technology, political reform (the invention of democracy, communism), philosophy (for every Simone de Beauvoir, there is a Jean Paul Sartre; but not vice versa), metaphysics, science, literature, mathematics, militarism, psychology, sociology, etc. etc. all require intellect and for every one woman that has contributed there are a countless number of men that have surpassed her. On an unrelated note I would like to thank my formidable opponent for participating, and taking this debate seriously. You certainly deserve a doctorate for dissertation you authored previously, but once again jokes aside, I look forward to your final rebuddle.