The only objective reason not to consider women inferior to men is purely physical.

None taken. It was truly asinine and inexcusable of me to not see that. I somehow replaced "they" with "we." Maybe I was multitasking. "What other explanation is there or[sic] their advantage?"In regards to the superior ability of women to multitask, I suggest a different origin of this talent: the differences in brain composition between men and women. The explanation my opponent has postulated is no more valid than mine, as he has failed to provide any evidence for it. My opponent has simply asserted this "all-over-the-place" and "urge to talk so much" stereotype of women without backing it up. He also simply asserts that women's ability to multitask is derived from their lack of focus. These assertions are unwarranted. Furthermore, the uncontested and undisputed fact that women have superior multitasking ability should be enough to convince the reader that I have met the requirements needed to fulfill my burden of proof.Also, my opponent called multitasking an advantage and then claimed that it is not an advantage because it is supposedly coupled with a decreased ability to focus. I would argue that the cause and reasons for the ability are irrelevant, even if the ability comes as the result of what my opponent might call an "inferior" quality. Superior multitasking ability is still an advantage in and of itself."Women are more capable than men at using language." Based on the conditions of the debate, this is all I need to show in order to fulfill my burden of proof, and my opponent has accepted it. Whether or not men are "more efficient users of their limited talents" is irrelevant.My opponent has presented a single case. Ziad Fazah is an outlier. It does not matter what the gender of a specific high achieving individual is. This information cannot be used to determine how men and women match up against each other in general and can go the other way as well. For example, a woman won the UK memory championship last year [2], but as it has already been established that we are talking about equality, superiority, and inferiority in general, these arguments are irrelevant. Also, I would note that being able to speak 59 languages fluently has nothing to do with being able to use them. It has already been established that women are more skilled in their use of language. "In fact if one were to flick through the Guinness book of world records they'd find very few mental feats being women[sic] and the only ones being women[sic] being reading speed or talking speed or something down that line." My opponent has provided no evidence for this assertion. Even if he does do so, the argument is irrelevant to the debate topic, for as I have just stated, we are discussing men and women in general, not outliers in any specific category.My opponent has argued that this woman's ability is actually detrimental to her interaction with others (inferior interaction ability). It is a superior ability nonetheless. I do, however, admit that her case is irrelevant, as we are not talking about outliers. "I'm sure a man with her 'unfortunate gift' would have made far better use of it." This is just another unsupported assertion. Women are better at teamwork. The reader should note that that this point remains uncontested. My opponent has dropped the argument. "Drop - An argument is dropped when it is not responded to. Arguments that are dropped are usually considered true for the remainder of the debate. You must respond to an argument once it is made, you cannot wait until the next round." [2]This alone is enough to fulfill my burden of proof. In this round, I will also introduce another way in which women are equal to men: IQ. Studies have found the average male IQ is two points higher than the average female. This is a very slight difference and one I would argue is almost negligible and certainly not "substandard." More recent studies have shown that this is changing; the averages for women in this study were slightly higher than averages for men (again, just by a matter of points). [3] This at least supports gender equality. I would argue that any difference in general intelligence is not due to the fact that women possess two X chromosomes, but because of their environment and how it has "responded" to their gender. "You are yet[sic] to display a single way that women prove their 'lack of inferiority' to men other than physically." As I have shown, this is not the case.In conclusion, I have presented four objective, non-physical ways in which women are equal to or superior to men.[1] http://www.worldmemorychampionships.com...[2] Debate.org Orientation thread; http://www.debate.org...[3]http://www.psychologytoday.com... (I tried to find the most reliable source for this information; as I felt the others were overly biased in their interpretation of the results to favour of women, I chose this one)