Males are superior to females

I encourage, in advance, for all voters to give Pro points in sources. I will not provide new sources, and attempt to not provide new arguments since my opponent would not be able to refute them in the actual debate itself. Physical: I'll give this one to you, again, simply due to a lack of time to research this. Mental: "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. " Using IQ tests as a justified basis that men are innately superior to women is indeed ludicrous and moot. And while it does indeed test what was provided, my opponent provided nothing but a biased source to define grades. I stand by my arguments, as well, that grades to show that the average woman is more intelligent. "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. " One thing my opponent doesn't seem to grasp about this argument is that we have been discussing men and women over the course of history. Women have been subject to societal disadvantages for a long time, and it is, compared to the thousands of years of gender bias, very recent that they've gotten equal rights at all. And again, I have shown examples of women being intellectually superior to men, which only backs up the research point about superior grades, college admissions, and graduation rates. This shows that, if anything, women are inherently more intelligent overall. "why have their patent numbers and mathematical, scientific, and engineering accomplishments not risen with their societal standing? " Research takes time, coming up with things takes time. Patents are not a solid ground to base intelligence on. There are things that come a long way, and then drop. If anything, patents are one of the worst examples to prove intelligence. "I have tried to find evidence that grades are more indicative of intelligence and cognition than IQ tests, but failed to find any. " My not using a source is better than using a biased definition, in fact, they both serve the same amount of usefulness. A single study hardly acts as proof, my opponent has based his entire argument around IQ tests, which do not prove anything about every other uninvolved field of intelligence. The other intelligences are not proven superior, and they are more numerous than what IQ tests cover. For this reason, my opponent has not successfully proven, with hard study, that men are overall more intelligent than women. Not every field of intelligence was proven by my opponent's sources. The other intelligences were covered by my opponent with the simple "More noteworthy men", social standards for women refute this, and therefore, the burden of proof was not met. Emotional "There is clearly a 2:1 ratio. Point to men. " This is not backed up with numeric statistics, Pro still hasn't proven a thing here. "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. " Pro, the category in which both of us were required, by your structure, to prove/refute was titled "Violence vs Tolerance". Pro used a single violent crime, when I turned back with evidence stating that most violent (The title word, folks! ) crimes were committed by men, Pro changed the rules in his favor. This is in poor conduct, and in violation of his own rules. We discussed violence, not both forms of aggression. If my opponent wishes to provide a statistic for a violent crime, that is what's being discussed. The point still goes to women for being less violent. (Dependence argument) . http://www.usatoday.com... "Findings show men are more interested in love, marriage and children than their peers in earlier times; women want more independence in their relationships than their mothers did" This isn't meant to be a new argument entirely, as it isn't something that can be refuted (Numbers, not opinion) It's a tie at best. "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" Refuted or negated. Conclusion I have indeed posted statistics to show that women are more or equally intelligent to men, my opponent's 'mental' category completely rides on IQ tests and patents, neither of which can encompass overall intelligence, and since both of us wound up just using specific names, my opponent has not met his burden of proof. Emotionally, my opponent twisted his own words without backing up that there are two times more depressed women than men (Are and likely to become are two different statements). He also changed from Violence to Aggression as a cheap, rule-breaking tactic. It seems that my statistics are simply shot down by "No, that doesn't count" (Without reason other than a biased quote) or "Well, sure, but now let's look at a completely different, and irrelevant side" While my opponent does have sources over me, I felt that I have prevented him from matching the burden on two out of three of the subjects, which does not make men, overall superior, to women. Very specific arguments are all he has for mental, while failing to meet every intelligence outside. My opponent fails to realize that there being a larger amount of great men is simply due to societal standards and gender oppression, not because women are just less intelligent by comparison. To sum it up, my opponent met the physical BOP, but not mental or emotional.