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

I claim my opponent's last argument to be invalid. In a debate every argument is subject to constraints be it time limit, word limit or, as it is in this case, character limit. my adversary has used 15292 characters which is almost twice of the word limit set for an argument (8000 characters). I would also urge my opponent to negate the idea I am conveying instead of quoting and contradicting each individual statement I make. there are several instances one will find that my statements have been quoted way out of context if he/she takes the pain of going through the humongous argument my opponent has put forth. for example when i say that about every married couple tries to have a baby she responds with "Are you saying, where you live, if two people in their 60"s get married they try to have a baby? What of couples where one or both spouses are infertile" even when i have mentioned that all my arguments are applicable to the majority and not everyone. she has quoted that too. "please keep in mind that my argument is based on the majority of the population and not every single person." and she replies, quite ironically, "I have never said otherwise." while i would love to follow the suit and quote and contest all of my opponents contentions, for the sake of objectivity i will refrain from it. i concede to the point made by the opponent that births outside of marriage or on the rise. 29% of all the births in USA are illegitimate which, although is a minority, is significant enough to merit a consideration. i would chalk it up to cultural differences because the place i live in, it is fairly rare and so i wrongly assumed it to be the general trend. However I still stand by the point that although men are more open towards sexual activities, when it comes to having kids, men are equally cautious as women. in her argument my opponent demonstrates the influence women have over the society with the following example. "if the mother of the next would-be Adolf Hitler were to choose to withhold sex on the particular day which would conceive him, the genetic component which influences his personality would almost certainly be different due to the various factors involved with sperm selection in the reproductive process. Since, as noted, women have an inherent tendency to be more selective and, consequently, influential in the reproductive process, women have a greater sway than men in the personality of the people who make up the set of policy regulators of a given institution. One example which readily comes to mind is Marie Curie; without her, research into radioactivity, the subsequent development of x-ray machines, and their eventual establishment in hospitals would have taken longer. All else being equal, no Marie Curies means one less researcher working in just the right field at just the right time in just the right way. This lack of research focus means less development of the particular field would have occurred and the benefits gained from it would have been slower to come, if at all. Meanwhile, the people whose lives were saved because Marie Curie did exist would have possibly died and their effect on their society would have been different compared to our society. Over time, as such differences compound, the course of history between these two timelines diverges more and more and the effect on society by the mother of Marie Curie having sex when she did becomes more and more pronounced." i quoted the entire paragraph in case the reader did not go through my opponents argument as this demonstrates the crux of her entire cause. It is clear that this example is hollow at its core and is just an example of the butterfly effect, which is the effect of small things resulting in great changes. the point my opponent fails to realize is that the mother did not 'choose' to give birth to Adolf Hitler or Marie Curie. She just chose to have unprotected sex at that particular time. She did not have any clue what her child will turn out to be. Results obtained without the intention is not influence, but luck. lets say a woman X is the CEO of a multi-national company which controls billions of dollars in assets. She has the power to make deals and trades which can effect millions of lives. The ripples of her decision and choices can effect entire countries! Similar things can be said about other positions of powers such as politicians, judges, managers or even head of the family. In all of these cases the subject is aware and concious of his/her decisions and the outcomes they may produce. Such power to control things is what i and everyone else means by 'influence'. "It (patriarchy) is primarily the Aristotelean belief men are inherently superior to women, the Aristotelean belief men are perfect while women are imperfect, and the spreading of that belief by Aristole"s student, Alexander the Great, which is thought to have lead to the disenfranchisement of women." Aristotle lived around 400-300 BC. Your statement that aristotle and his disciple alexander were responsible for patriarchy is false. One of the earliest civilization in the world, Indus valley civilization which existed around 3300 BC was dominantly patriarchal. Many animal societies which are mammals such as that of monkeys, chimps and even lions are patriarchal. In their societies the head position is obtained by the demonstration of strength. you might argue that the nature of their society holds no relevance pertaining to our own origins but with that you will go against every social psychologist present today. you might also give me examples of other societies such as that of penguins, ants or bees. penguin society is gender neutral, but you may also notice that males and females have about equal strength in the species. even when males cannot reproduce themselves and do not have superior strength, they have a gender neutral society. in ants and bees they do have a queen, but that's just one female. the others work. in fact in a hive only female bees work while the males are only responsible to fertilize the queen and nothing else. anyway the above species are not mammals and significantly different from humans. "your argument does not take into account the fact a number of women are stronger than a number of men while the number of men able to conceive and carry children thru a full pregnancy in the same fashion as women still remains extremely low." "technological advances are rendering the effect of those differences moot. Today, using a combination of various tools and/or devices, some of the most delicate females, if not all, can lift as much as the most olympian male bodybuilder" As i said earlier my arguments are for the majority. females with extra ordinary strength are in minority. I agree that technological advances have rendered the advantage mute. however, my statement was made in the context of origins of a male dominated society, not in the present world. The advantage men have now is that society is already dominated by men regardless of the fact that the reason that enabled them to dominate does not apply any more. for example a very rich man can fund his campaign and get elected for an office. now, even if he goes broke, he will still have the power and influence of the office even when the money which enabled him to get the office is gone. to repeat myself, i agree that women are not as open as men towards sex but when it comes to reproduction men are equally cautious and selective. also the argument you pose that women gain power and influence in society by giving birth to influential people is fallacious as i noted above.