gender equality is critical to development and peace of every nation.

I will start by refuting my opponent's arguments. Before I do so, I would like to provide a definition which will help my case. I will post my arguments within the refutations. . Utilitarianism - the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. [5] . . "there are various conditions and place where women are disadvantaged." Arguments that help my case. . . "women classification according to their race, disabilities, economic status. this is an unfair action in societies." Males are also classified according to their race, disabilities, and economic status. This statement does not help or hurt my opponent's case, on in the fact that it has a grammatical error. . . "women are paid less than men for doing the same work" Capitalization error. My opponent doesn't show factual evidence, because in the resolution it states EVERY nation. Many countries, including the United States of America pay the same amount of money no matter what race or gender. . . "yes your definition is definitely right." Capitalization, agreeing with definitions so therefore there will be no change for the rest of the debate. . . "It is a fundamental condition for the full enjoyment of human rights by women and men and is critical for the development of every nation" The best way for a developing country to advance as a nation is by valuing utilitarianism. By helping the majority of people, the country will benefit as a whole. For a developing country, it would be very hard to obtain machines for drilling or resource extraction. With that said, one way to quickly have an income that would benefit the nation as a whole would be mining and selling resources. We could start a debate that men are superior (at mining) compared to women, but will take up too much time, and is irrelevant. A developing country could be compared with a country from an ancient world, one without technology or a stable government yet. The best way to become successful is by following what the most successful of ancient civilizations did. Most of those civilizations relied on the male characters of society to do the manual labor while the females would do housework and teaching. If a developing country would like to be more successful as a whole, they would have to follow the footsteps of the most successful of territories in the ancient world, and by doing so they would have to have men in a higher social status than women. . . "and is critical for the development of every nation." Same reasons as the refutation above. . . "Many regards gender equality as a human right." Other than the grammatical error (Many regards) My opponent does not show any evidence supporting his or her case that people reagrd gender as a human right. Even if he or she did, my opponent does not state how that would affect the idea that prioritizing gender equality over the advancement of the country would help the country as a whole . . " It points out that empowering women is also an indispensable tool for advancing development and peace of nation." No evidence to support this claim. . . "Research has shown that the male and female brains are sometimes good at different things," Other than the lack of evidence, my opponent does not show that women are better than males at governing the nation as a whole. Throughout the history of almost any country or territory, there have been clearly more male leaders in the most successful of civilizations. If the developing country would want to become like one of these successful countries, they would also want to do the same as they did, by electing a powerful male military leader, philosophical adviser, or government official. . . "This indicates that the two genders have equal potential to be valuable." Valuable, yes. But clearly no evidence that my opponent states supports the fact that women are more valuable specifically in governing a developing country. Therefore, my opponents claims, either true or false, are still irrelevant to this debate. . . "men more often fulfilling roles in the public sphere, and women more often fulfilling roles in the private sphere" Evidence that supports my claim. Men, as my opponent and I agree on are more fit and able to lead in a public space than women are. Therefore men should have a better chance of being a leader than women. That would go against the definition of gender equality, and therefore my opponent is helping my case. . . " I"d say it"s safe to presume that men and women are equally valuable to society." Once again, I agree that men and women are as valuable as each other in society, but they are better in different ways. The term "alpha male" fits the scenario. Alpha male is the dominant male animal in a particular group. [6] The term shows that the strongest (physically) member of a certain group will triumph over the rest and therefore become the leader. With that said, Men have a much greater advantage of being a ruler of a developing country because they would know how to lead it. I agree that men and women are valuable, but in leading a nation currently in anarchy, there should be limits to how far a women can reach up the social ladder. . . "Society would not function without the roles that men perform or without the roles that women perform. Equality between the sexes means that the sexes are valued equally, and given equal opportunities, as outlined above. " Most of it is the same as I explained earlier, but at the end my opponent states "Equality between the sexes means the sexes are valued equally, and given equal opportunities, as outlined above. My opponent did not "outline above" reasons as to why they should have equal opportunities, only stating that they are both valuable to society. . . "In fact, it is irrelevant to gender equality whether men and women make the same choices, as long as each man and each woman is truly free to choose whatever path seems right to him or her." It is irrelevant to even include this in the debate. . . "We know that biological differences between the sexes exist, but we do not yet know to what extent these differences would influence the choices of women and men in a culture that allows you to go beyond stereotypes." Also irrelevant to this debate. . . "By dropping the criterion of sameness, gender equality becomes much more achievable, and does not limit individual freedom." My opponent goes from valuing the country as a whole, as I have done with utilitarianism, and stating that women and men are each valuable, to valuing individual freedom. Utilitarianism states that an action is morally right if it protects the majority of the people, not a person individually. . . . [5] http://www.merriam-webster.com... . . [6] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... . . . . . I will extend arguments/refutations next round, and I await my opponent's response.