Male domination is necessary for a society to have net gender equality.

Address your concerns one by one: Actually, the limit I placed was how many characters one can utilize on debate.org per round. To argue, for example, only 8,000 characters at most in total may be used to make an argument each round would negate much reference material. Additionally, nothing in any debate rule I put forth said we may not post links to elaborated text. However, I digress. To “quote someone out of context” is only meaningful if the resultant quote is either a misquote or a misinterpretation, both of which I asked you to show I presented. Neither did I say you accused me of changing your claims. However, this point is yet another digression. Your focus on sex is superfluous because I never based my argument on sex, only reproduction; while sex may be the typical way one thinks of reproduction, the advent of in vitro fertilization makes reproduction independent of sex. Your argument about apprehensiveness with respect to having children argues the wrong point: I stated women have a tendency to be a greater limiting factor than men with respect to reproduction due to the greater incentive to act as such; such a tendency does not require one be “apprehensive” with respect to having children, either in absolute terms or relative terms. You again seem to be using a word incorrectly, “empower”; that word means “to give (someone) the authority or power to do something” (Cf., the OED again). However, I am not saying women should be given such power; I am saying women already have such power. Nor do I say, again, such power “lead[s] to a higher societal status and benefits”. I am saying, if we want women and men to be social equals, we must account for inherent differences in social influence when assessing relative social status between two otherwise identical people. Regarding history, even if nobody noticed the influence women have over society in the past does not mean we should continue to ignore that influence today. As such, the position of women in medieval times is irrelevant to what ought to be today. When one considers the reach of Alexander the Great’s empire and the influence of Aristotle he brought with him, the entrenchment of the more destructive form of male dominance you describe is not surprising. However, again, (1) male dominance need not take that form and (2) the history says nothing about what ought to be today. On the Indus Valley, a single statement repeated twice without evidence is unconvincing. Consider http://v.gd... which disputes your assertion. Both pages make conflicting claims without verifiable citation. On Mesopotamia, you now present either a new argument or a piece of information to try to back up an existing argument; whichever course you intend it still says nothing about what ought to be today. Regarding reproduction and “common sense”, the appeal to “common sense” is a type of informal fallacy and I would suggest you stay away from it because it does not help prove your points. However, if such an appeal did, one could equally claim it to be “common sense” a man does not and cannot, due to the differing circumstances described, be “equally cautious” as an otherwise identical woman. The added concerns of nine months of pregnancy, increased difficulty at disavowing lineage, extra physical demands of pregnancy and/or nursing, and potential emotional attachment due to direct physical attachment during pregnancy are simply not as fully comprehended by one completely incapable of directly experiencing such. I did present this proof in my opening argument. Why you imply I did not is unclear. Again, my argument is independent of sex. However, even if it were not, as noted earlier, the differences in circumstances and incentives of otherwise identical women and men would be the cause of any such personality differences, if they did exist. As such, those differences in personality represent signs of factors with non-zero weight to consider in assessing net gender equality.