The Inexplicable Debate: When Opinions Clash with Scientific Consensus

Today, I was on YouTube watching some interesting clips, and I found something very surprising yet appalling. Through it all, I couldn't help but wonder to myself how one could be so adamantly unwilling, even in the face of a series of compelling truths, to admit that they are wrong.

If posed with the question, "Are men generally physically stronger than women?" what would your answer be? Emphasis on "general," indicating that, most certainly, there could be exceptions in some cases where a woman would be stronger than a man or a percentage of men in the world.

I wouldn't want to assume anyone's answer, but I think it is agreeable and safe to say that most people, if not everyone—even old enough kids—would answer the question in the affirmative. What if I told you, however, that there is one particular individual who is willing to argue against this statement for even fifty minutes—twice?

Allow me to rephrase. Someone on a podcast show called "Whatever" on YouTube did argue against that question for about 45 minutes one time on the show and then for about 55 minutes on a different episode, probably weeks or months apart. And the most appallingly interesting thing was that her basis and reasons were just flawed and unreasonable. Her point of view was just unfathomable, so much so that she was the only one at that table who strongly held that opinion.

Her argument, particularly in the first episode, was that she couldn't give a definitive answer to such a question without reasonable proof with statistics and things like that. And she really didn't know if that was actually true. Taken aback by such a perspective, I wondered where and why she would think for once that the fact that men are generally stronger than women is refutable.

_pixabay

Posed with several examples like, "Who do you mostly see move the heavier things around you, men or women? Why do you think that there are men's sports and women's sports and that men and women do not compete in the same competitions and games? How is it that the world's strongest heavyweight lifter's record for men is double that of the women's? Her responses were mostly stating that she didn't know if all those statements were even true.

A descriptive reality of a situation was then used as an example, and then her response yet again shocked me. "If you were to choose between a man and a woman to be in a house with during a housebreak, and that chosen individual's only task was to defend your life, who would you blindly choose without any foreknowledge of their physical capabilities, a man or a woman?" And her response to that question was, "The stronger individual." What in the world was that? I said to myself,.

Where it got even scarier was that there was a big screen before them, and a lot of data was pulled up, including "boys vs. women" data from an experiment carried out in 2016. She still wouldn't budge and admit that she was wrong, had a baseless point of argument, and was just being totally unreasonable.

In the "boys vs. women" comparison done in 2016, high school boys were made to compete with female Olympic medalists. The results were shocking, as the boys outperformed these women in every sport—including sprints, hurdles, swimming, and shot put—except super marathons for some reason. Apparently, most women seem to have more endurance capabilities than most men.

_{boysvswomen.com}

Now, now. This whole argument between this 19-year-old girl with this shocking point of view and others that tried to point her to the truth (which were mostly men) isn't some misogynitic point of view insinuating that women are weaker or even prejudiced against her age. It's nothing like that.

As a matter of fact, as stated in the arguments in the show, women tend to be smarter and perform more brilliantly in academics. I know this for myself, as I usually had the girls in my class take the top positions growing up as a kid. Generally, women are smarter. The point there and then in the show, and even now, is that men are generally physically stronger.

Where it got all hilarious and ridiculous, and this was in the second episode that she came back to even after losing the first time, was that she claimed that her own mother could whoop the ass of most men in the world—80% of the men, in fact. Even crazier, her mother is only 5 feet tall.

Then, Brock Lesnar was pulled up on the screen. A giant wrestler who is 6 feet, 3 inches tall. And then she was asked if her mother could whoop Lesnar's ass, and she says, "Probably, or maybe he's in the 20% she can't beat." This was absolute balderdash. Who would even think that? An average man of 5 feet and eight inches wouldn't even think of going up against Brock.

For the entire cumulative time spent on this argument to be well around two hours, I couldn't just believe that someone would argue something as simple as that. One person in the show said that it was analogous to arguing if the sky was blue when everyone in the entire world knows that it is blue.

_pixabay

Her entire point of argument still remains a mystery to me, as she still left with her opinion unchanged, although she did seemingly concede in the second episode. It was all too ridiculous to watch. I wonder how someone would be so egocentric as to let their pride down and admit that they were wrong.

I mean, I reckon that the only way to get the best out of an argument, like Dale described his book, is to avoid it. But who would even imagine that such a thing would even turn into an argument? I couldn't comprehend the lady.

What are your thoughts on this? Are we all wrong—those against her point of view—and is there something that we are missing? Kindly share your thoughts. Meanwhile, I'll link both episodes right here for a firsthand experience of the conversations if you'd like to indulge yourself.