In Retrospect Girls > Guys

[I'll voluntarily not give a 4th round argument, so that both of us have the same number of arguments] I never said nor implied that God "shat out a son", as you say. I am claiming that God impregnated Mary with divine powers (or an old-fashioned turkey baster), and then SHE birthed Jesus. Besides that, what about other religions? Almost all major religions, present and past, either do not explicitly state the deity's gender, like Christianity, or say that the major god is a male, like Greek and Roman mythology. My opponent never addressed other religions. How intolerant of him/her. By saying that the penis is a weapon, I mean that the penis is more majestic than the vagina. The phallic shape as a whole reflects proud heritage and genetics, standing tall against all adversaries. [1] Nothing that is shaped like a vagina compares to the military might of the penis. The Amazons would be a good example of a matriarchal society, that is true. However, the Amazons are largely fictional and were never an influential civilization. Compare that to the Greeks, where we get much of today's knowledge about the Amazons. The Greeks still influence us today, with the foundation of math, science, philosophy, and other studies being formed in (extremely male-dominated) Greece. The Amazons' legacy? A superhero whose weakness is BDSM. Come on, they aren't even trying. While my opponent says that the past is irrelevant, it is far from it. Again, my opponent has a disturbing habit of abandoning thousands of years of consensus in favor of some baseless rhetoric. The past must be seen, as it still echoes in our world today. Men still rule in more ways than one, because girls drool. The US Congress has 102 women out of 535 Congress members. That's less than a fifth of the US Congress made up of women.[2] Face it, men ruled, and still rule, for thousands of years because men are better. Again, anti-leadership cooties. My opponent is unable to look at the past, not even at her opening argument. She says, "there are some gay people but not enough to matter" in her opening argument, but then turns around and say that the fact that there are more bisexual females mean that girls are inherently sexier. I thought bisexuals were just a part of a group that are "not enough to matter". On page 6 of the full UCLA report that my opponent cited, there was also an interesting statistic: Gay men compose a larger ratio of the male LGBT population than gay women do for the female LGBT population.[3] Thus, if she says that bisexuals are bisexual because they can't resist women, doesn't that also apply to male gays? Guys have a better ability to attract guys completely, while most of the time, the female body is just a distraction or a choice. My opponent also never addresses the point of money and Dora advertisements. Who has the money rules the world, and who has the money? Men. How did men get more money that women? Because men are better, that's what. There's the gender pay gap, where men earn more money than women for the same work hours. [4] That shows that men are better at acquiring money, because we're better as a whole. Thus, voter, it is clear that men are the superior sex. I encourage all to think about this long and hard. The truth will soon become clear, that GUYS are WHOO BEST! PARTY TIME. Thank you, and good day. [1] (http://static.tvtropes.org...) [2] (http://www.senate.gov...) [3] (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...) [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)