Women should not be allowed to vote or have authority

It seems that my opponent hasn't got the slightest idea of what evidence really is, so allow me to educate her. I know she won't listen, but it's worth a try:Sources prove absolutely nothing. Any fool can quote a source and claim that this proves their opinion, but it doesn't. My opponent needs to prove that her sources are reliable and accurate, but she hasn't. For example, if I were to quote a source from a creationist website and make the claim that this proves creation, would any atheist accept that? Of course not! The people who write these sources are often biased, so I have no idea why my opponent, or anybody else, thinks that quoting sources is evidence. I could quote a source that says men are smarter than women. Is my opponent just going to accept that? Absolutely not! She would demand that I must prove the source to be true. All I'm doing is asking the same request. So far my opponent hasn't given a single iota of evidence that prove her sources to be reliable or accurate. It is exceedingly sly and deceptive to fool people into thinking that quoting sources counts as evidence. It does not! My opponent must prove that her sources are true, and so far she hasn't done that, nor is she going to.My opponent then says I haven't "provided a shred of evidence outside of anecdotal, first-hand, biased observation that suggest women "think in circles" while men think in "straight lines." I urge any man to take a woman shopping and you will have proof that what I'm saying is true. Trying to prove this by quoting a source is ridiculous. I can easily do it, but is my opponent really going to accept such a source, especially if it is written by a man? I very much doubt it. Just take a woman shopping and you will have all the proof you need.My opponent then goes on to say something very cunning. She says, "Pro hasn't proven that women aren't capable of thinking logically." I never said such a thing. It's possible for a woman to think logically, of course it is. My point is that women will usually put their emotions before their logic. And I'm not saying that women can't be as smart as men. Some women are very intelligent. However, when it comes to making decisions, women use emotions first and logic second. My opponent then says, "Pro also denies my suggestion that women tend to be better at communicating than men, despite my cited source claiming otherwise." I repeat again, sources don't prove anything. How many times do I need to point this out? My opponent did not provide any evidence whatsoever that proves her source to be true. I can quote all kinds of crazy sources from biased websites. What does it prove? NOTHING! She claims that this [psych] ­test also found that women have better listening skills. Logic and common sense does not support this. Women do most of the talking but less of the listening. My opponent can quote all the sources in the world, but if she can't prove her sources to be true, then it's pointless. Like I said, people who write these sources are often biased, and these people are not infallible. I really wish my opponent would acknowledge this, but she doesn't. My opponent then goes on to say that I "dispute the claim that feminism seeks to attain equal rights/ advocate for equal value of women in society, claiming instead that it is a cult." However, notice that my opponent did not address what I said about fathers. If feminists are only seeking equality, then where are the feminists when it comes the father's rights? The legal system will bow to the desires and the whims of the mother, yet father's are badly treated when it comes to having rights over the children. I've come across father's who are distraught that the legal system is giving them such little access to their children. Why is there no outcry from the feminist community? If feminists just want equality, why are they not fighting for father's rights? It's the same with domestic violence. I know of many men who suffer domestic violence, yet they don't get the same help and protection as women. Again, where are the feminists when it comes to men's rights? The idea that most feminists only want equality is a blatant lie that is repeatedly told, but I think most men have now become aware of this.The governments have indeed used women to destroy the family unit. The culprits are the Secret Societies. These are people like the Rothchilds and the Rockefellers. These are the people who run the government. They also run the banks and the oil. They are multi-billionaires, and these are the people who control the governments. They are the forces in the shadows, and they also control the legal system. The agenda of these people is power and control. They wanted women to rely on the state instead of their own family. By doing this, it gave them more power and control over society. When the family unit is strong, the governments have less authority over people. The government and Secret Societies set up a system where women could rely on the state, where the father was not needed. The reason why fathers have very little rights over the children is because the governments often put corrupt judges into the legal system, because their agenda is to destroy the family unit and make women dependant on the government instead of the father. As a result, more and more fathers are not taking responsibility, and more and more mothers are choosing to rely on the legal system instead of their own family. Of course, my opponent will say that I have no evidence of this, but anybody who seriously believes that the governments and the mega rich Secret Societies have no agendas, such a person is deluded and out of touch with reality. Most people now know that the governments are corrupt. People don't need a internet source to know this.My opponent then claims that she has proven scientifically that men are not smarter than women. Actually, she hasn't. All she has done is quote a few sources that haven't been proven to be accurate and reliable. Now, I'm not saying that men ARE smarter than women, I'm just saying that my opponent hasn't proven anything. She has only quoted sources, which any fool can do. My opponent then accuses me of telling a blatant lie when I said that she hasn't provided any evidence for her claims. She then goes on to claim that her sources are evidence. No, they are not! I'll say it a million times if I have to: any fool can quote an internet source. I can quote a source that says there is scientific evidence that evolution is false. Would any atheist accept that? Of course they wouldn't. I can quote all kinds of sources that claims they are based on reliable studies. So what? It proves nothing. My opponent has repeatedly failed to prove any of her sources to be true. If I were to quote a load of sources that disagreed with all of my opponents arguments, is she just going to accept them as truth? I very much doubt it. So it's very cunning and deceptive of her to keep referring to sources as evidence. They are not! She might have other people fooled, but she hasn't fooled me.And finally, women making decisions based on their emotions are not beneficial to anybody. It is a danger to society and must be opposed. If not, marriage and family will continue to decay. Thanks