Women should not be allowed to vote or have authority

Pro says it's a "cop out" to expect that he provide sources and citations for things that he states are facts. Of course, facts are defined specifically as something that you can prove. If he can't prove it, they aren't facts. He writes, "I cannot prove that an apple is healthier than a cheese burger, but most of us are rational enough to know that an apple is much healthier... without having absolute proof." That of course is absurd. The reason people 'know' an apple is healthier than a cheese burger is because somewhere along the line, someone proved that it was. I can do so here by providing a list of the health benefits of apples [1] vs. the health risks of cheese burgers [2]. We have no reason to accept Pro's opinions as facts. By his own admission, he has no proof that what he says is accurate. Meanwhile, I have offered evidence proving his statements as inaccurate. Pro hasn'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." He also suggests that women's "fickle" emotions make them more irrational than men. He doesn't acknowledge or address what I said about emotions helping in the rationalization process, and how/why being emotionally inept is a valuable asset. He also disregards my analysis regarding men being just as emotional than women, tending to display angry, volatile emotions and why that can be detrimental. Emotional men who act out of anger or aggression are far less logical than women who do not. Pro hasn't proven that women aren't capable of thinking logically. Indeed that is a fallacy: a baseless assertion. Everyone exhibits different forms of intelligence. Examples include spatial, linguistic, existential, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, musical, athletic, etc. On balance, you might find that men tend to excel in say mathematical intelligence, while women exhibit superior skills of language. However, not all women are less capable than men at math, and likewise not all men are less capable than women to exhibit linguistic intelligence. On average, women and men have essentially equal mental capacity, but different hormones, a different balance of white/gray matter, and different social expectations which all contribute to men and women possessing different cognitive strengths and weaknesses (again, on average). Once you start comparing people at an individual level, particularly in different cultures, it's nearly a crap shoot. The differentiation is very small. Even if it were not, I've already explained in the last round why acknowledging various perspectives of the world is important from both sexes. Pro completely disregarded those arguments.Pro also denies my suggestion that women tend to be better at communicating than men, despite my cited source claiming otherwise. It notes, "Women are much more comfortable discussing a problem and considering alternative opinions. The [psych] ­test also found that women have better listening skills, which in turn aids their heightened ability to empathize with others." I have another source which provides scientific evidence explaining why my claim that women are better communicators is accurate. Because women are better at deciphering others' emotions, using language, and expressing their emotions amongst other strengths, this claim has been proven for the most part scientifically accurate though of course there are no absolutes [3]. Warrior disputes the claim that feminism seeks to attain equal rights/ advocate for equal value of women in society, claiming instead that it is a cult. As I said in the last round, this is an unsubstantiated assertion based on Pro's cherry-picking and misrepresentation of feminism's goals. Indeed feminists have fought for women throughout American history; examples include the suffrage movement, fighting for women to be able to own property, stricter laws against rape, the right to self-governance of their own body (whether Pro agrees with their decisions or not), etc. Feminism is about empowering women. Small groups of "angry, man hating" feminists do not represent feminism as a whole.Pro then rants about how government programs incentivize women to raise children without a father. Not only is this untrue, it is irrelevant to the resolution as a contention explaining why women ought not be able to vote or hold power, so I'll dismiss it for the sake of brevity. As I said in the last round, the political sphere is dominated by males and yet Pro claims the government is already biased in favor of women. He ignores the reality that men currently help shape public policy, and the laws reflect the opinion of both men and women. Clearly not all men think like him, just as not all women disagree with him. Individuals regardless of sex or gender should have a say in determining the laws that dictate their lives. To suggest otherwise is oppressive. Moreover, even if Pro could prove that men were "smarter" than women (which I've already proven as both scientifically and psychologically inaccurate), what if we extended the argument to only men with a certain IQ could vote? What if Pro did not meet this criteria? Further, what if we set an IQ limit for everyone regardless of sex? In that way, Pro's idea that only smart people should vote would be entirely dismantled if women met the standard (and surely some men would not). In conclusion of his round, Pro brushes off every one of my proactive arguments. He writes, "My opponent then went on to list some key arguments as to why women should vote. All she did was quote other people, but not a single shred of evidence was given." That is a blatant lie. First, I provided a study which proved women tend to excel in business with empirical data. That's evidence. Second, I noted the American Journal of Political Science indicating women do a better job at securing money for their home districts and shaping policy. That's evidence. Third, I explained how traits women tend to exhibit on balance more often than men (such as collaborative problem solving) helped them as political leaders. That's evidence/ analysis. Extend all of these arguments.Finally, extend my conclusion that women see the world from a different vantage point than men, and often seek to tackle different issues. When they are part of the decision-making process, a greater diversity of voices and perspectives are heard. This is beneficial to everyone, and is the crux of my argument that Pro must challenge or negate.[1] http://www.besthealthmag.ca...[2] http://healthyeating.sfgate.com...[3] http://voices.yahoo.com...