Men are better than women.

Alright then. Since this is clearly a hard concept for you to get, I'll take it very slowly, and step-by-step. "Please tell me as to how I made an inference on your arguments. You're the one making the inferences." To begin, you assume that I fail to understand your argument, or that I am deliberately attempting to maneuver the debate into such a circumstance as to make it impossible for me to be wrong. Your continued asinine remarks show this *very* clearly. " You still haven't proposed any logical argument to deny that you haven't done this.." Uh... Are you serious? Can you even read English, sir? **"However for numerous biological and evolutionary concerns, the male gender is better suited to ensuring the survivability and technological advancement of the human race."** "...as my opponent was obviously using such biological differences as the main base of his argument, I assumed that this would be the majority part and main qualifier of his argument, odd as that may sound." I directly referenced the fact that, clearly, going by what you were saying, I had accidentally misinterpreted what you were saying somehow. I directly made remarks that showed that it genuinely appeared as though that was the point you were attempting to make, and what's more *I Apologized* for doing this. What part of that do you not understand? "..."certain things being literally physically impossible for one gender, for example men giving birth." This=Biological differences. You know what else that includes? The proven sexual dimorphisms in the anatomical structure and neurochemical make up of the brain, among many others." No, it really doesn't. I stated 'being literally physically impossible for one gender', and further used an example to point toward the sort of issue I was discussing. Your assumption that I meant this to be closer to "physically impossible for a female to have a male brain, therefore discount it" is *ridiculous*! Hell, I even used the exact same example *you* did right at the beginning of the debate to illustrate this point: "Having a baby is something spectacular. A man can't have a baby even if he wants to." I *know* that the male brain is not exactly 1:1 the same as the female brain. Further, any statement by me that this is entirely irrelevant to the mental and psychological development of the genders would be nonsensical. I'm *aware* of this. That was *never* my intent or part of my argument. I *get* that male brain structure predisposes them to being better at, say, spatial relation skills. That doesn't then make it 'physically impossible' for either a male or female to use spatial relation skill. Do you see what I'm trying to say here? As the enormous majority of differences between males and females do not come down to 'physical impossibility' so much as 'one tends to be mildly-to-moderately' better, those differences simply do not fall under the purview of what I stated here. At all. "Your logic says that, despite that the male brain may be fundamentally different than the female brain, its not possible that these differences account to anything significant, because you say so. That's not for you to determine sweetheart." Aww, that's cute. No, it doesn't . That statement tells me nothing aside from the fact that you just haven't been listening to me at all. My logic states that the differences able to be held accountable to biological differences don't matter as much as those able to be pinpointed as 'learned' or cultural/social differences in the way those two genders are treated as they develop. This is because the mental and psychological development of *both* genders is impacted infinitely more by the environment they grew up in, and their treatment by their peers and caretakers, than by the specifics of the biological structure those environments are acting on. Assuming that said biological structure is within the healthy human norm. "You think you get to impose additional requirements on the debate topic by saying well, if you ignore whatever differences exist, you can consider men and women to be equal." Right, except that my previous post very clearly showed that I never intended to put 'additional requirements' on what you were allowed to use as your argument. I'm not going into detail on that again. Putting it quite simply, I only stated that we should 'ignore' 'differences' that exist for one gender only as an actual *physical impossibility*. It is *impossible* for a male to give birth. It is *impossible* for a female to be exactly as strong as the strongest possible male. It is *not impossible* for a female to be just as good at spatial relation skills as any given male. It is *not impossible* for a male to have a 'female' gender identity. So, very simply, I never stated that they can only be 'considered equal' if we ignore all differences. I argued that they can be considered equal *despite* those differences. Which you still haven't argued for, I might add. After that sentence, you went on to write: "inanity" Which I am not going to justify with a response of any kind. May I remind you that the burden of proof is on you to prove that men are better than women? Which you have *completely* ignored in a pathetic attempt to make me look like either a troll or a five year old. I've given you no less than *four* separate warnings of this, and *three* times I've stated that any appearance of my attempting to pursue a different debate to yourself is just not true. I've given you *several* opportunities to give up this ridiculous and remarkably vacuous line of dialogue and just get on with your argument. Each and every time you have ignored me entirely and continued attempting, and pathetically failed, to make me appear to be the that is to fault for the poor state of affair of the debate so far.