That women need men like fish need bicycles

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for a debate I've thoroughly enjoyed, but it isn't over yet so let's get straight into it. The negative stated that he wanted me to point out what my logical conclusion was. My logical conclusion is that in the past we have removed potential dangers from medical procedures. I therefore suggest that, it is possible the risks are removed. I would also like to point out one small fact the negative may have overlooked from the ABC article. The truth is, I don't have to agree with the ethics behind the issue for the issue to still be relevant. To use another example, I may not agree with euthanasia for example, but if legislation was to be passed for it to become legal (it's currently illegal where I live, so apologies if this does not apply to someone else who reads this), there wouldn't be a thing I could do about it. No matter what my thought, the law would still be in place. The same goes for this, but in a slightly different sense. I may not agree with the ethics, but the fact remains it can be done, and therefore can be used to support my claims. The negative has also stated that, "Women are capable at doing these things [military and construction]. But is this the desire of all women? No." Well of course. No one's disputing that fact. Truth be told, you're also going to find a lot of men who do not want to do that either. In a society where only women would exist, you would need a balance of women who want to defend and construct, and those who which to nurture in the home. I feel I can therefore safely say that, on this point at least, the affirmative has proven why men are not needed, and the negative has not shown otherwise. "It is the different personalities, beliefs, etc. and you will still have those with women/men even if the world excluded males." True. However, without men in the world, this is one more conflict to be removed from the world. It's a small point, I will admit that, but it is still one that shows why women do not need men. In closing, a discussion of the themes presented from both sides. Beginning with the negative, the entire negative case appears to have been based around the ideas of "liberty, equality, fraternity", and those with history majors can see where I got that from. However, simply put, those ideas will hold, if not even more so, with only women in the world. It is therefore safe to say that based on the negatives case, there is no need for men in the world. The negative was also placed with the burden of proving why men are needed in the world. However, the negative seems to believe that by simply rebutting my arguments, this will then come together. I am still wondering where the proof and the strength of the negatives case is. On those grounds alone there should be substantial reasoning for an affirmative vote. Whilst the affirmatives case is not perfect, as nothing ever is in this world, it is a reasonable case, showing simple reasons why men are not truly needed in the world. After all, that is what the debate is about. It's not about how equal we are in society or how we should all be equal. It is about necessity, and through my case it should be clear, men are not necessary. I will now leave the negative to close (and rebut where my opponent deems it necessary) and await the results.