Men are better than women.

Yeah, you're missing the point. At no point did I actually claim any of those things, especially not with regards to physical differences or actual brain structure variations being "out of bounds" or "absolutely not part of the topic at all". I pointed out that the actual developmental differences in the male and female brains are *easily offset* by a good education, and that those differences *in themselves* are simply not enough to qualify one as inherently better at a specific task utilizing multiple areas of the brain, many of which are entirely unaffected by this dimorphism. I *understand* that there are in fact biological differences between males and females, many of which do affect the brain. I'm not an *idiot*. I simply disagree with your explicit assumption that this means that men therefore *must* be inherently 'better' than women for various purposes, rather than simply developmentally different, with each better able to *learn* some skills than others. As to your "men cannot give birth" statement, you have spectacularly missed the point there, in what I can only deem an accidental Epic Fail. You were using it as an example of how the genders were "designed for different purposes". I *know* you weren't using it to state the sorts of differences you were discussing. That"s why I used it as an example of the sorts of differences that *wouldn't* be relevant to the topic. We *both* understand this. What part are you not getting? "But it is a physical impossibllity for an adult female lion to resemble an adult male lion whatsoever in strength, power, and simply the pure determination to kill." Right, I understand where you're coming from. Remember though, that the *absolute* upper limitations of skills being higher than the other in differing areas *do not* then mean that a given female will not be as good as or better than a given male. Unless the lion we're talking about here is so physically fit as to have entirely surpassed the upper limitations of female fitness, which is unlikely at best, then it simply does not matter. I understand that the averages mean that a given male will likely be better than a given female at certain areas, and again I'm not arguing that this isn't the case. I'm arguing that such "average" values are *easily* circumvented by any amount of training or learning in those given areas. I'm not arguing for physical differences being irrelevant, I'm arguing for them being backseat to learned differences. "The female brain does not posess the reasoning and logical information processing power, nor the capacity for spatial representation, that is going to be necessary at the most elite levels of science." Right, umm... That's where you're... wrong? I'm sorry, but that's just not the case. Women do tend toward less spatial representation skill, and mildly reduced "logical information processing power", but this is not one of those "absolute limitations" I discussed earlier. Specifically, females have both a "thicker" parietal region, which makes spatial rotation somewhat more difficult, and the inferior-parietal lobe is slightly larger in males, which aids somewhat in mathematical skills. This is just the difference most relating to your apparent argument. These differences, I'll admit, do lead to men often having an easier time with mathematics-related skills. This does not mean, however, that it is impossible, or even very difficult, for females to have just as much acuity and skill in those areas as any given male with the same amount of learning in that area. The actual amount of grey and white matter used for these tasks is far from set, and it is simply not true that sheer amount of processing power instantly equates to more skill in these learned areas. For example, studies have shown that, as male brains tend to have an easier time with these skills, their brains are quite "happy" to use *only* this area of the brain directly for employing its related skills. Females, however, have been shown to use multiple related areas in order to "get more out" of what they have and employ the skill more effectively. And please remember, despite my apparent misinterpretation of your argument, and I quote myself here: "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?" Given this, you were more than within your rights to continue on with your debate and reference the fact that I had accepted *your* terms if I at any point attempted to "shift the goalposts". You have continued to refuse to do this, and have blatantly and explicitly refused to continue with your argument until such a time as I either go over an exhausting list of exactly how and why I misinterpreted your argument, or simply copy-paste your first post and write "I accept *this*". I have *accepted your debate. My *entire* second round post was literally *nothing* more than pointing out that I had accepted *your* argument and was prepared to listen to and counter your arguments within the terms *you* set. Any belief that I have somehow not done so is simply incorrect. "Regardless, we have still yet to properly engage in debate of the subject at hand." YOU THINK? Round 2: "I apologize for my misinterpretation, and if my opponent feels ready to utilize the remaining rounds to put forward his arguments, he may begin doing so." Round 3: "We are not arguing this point any more. You will move on to making your actual points as to the issue at hand. We will keep all other talk of semantics and specific wording to the comment section, if it proves necessary. Are we clear?" Round 4: "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." I have given you *so many* opportunities to get on with your argument that it has simply ceased being amusing. What part of what I said did you *not* understand? "I apologize if you did not clearly understand what I said. There is an apparent dispute as to what the specifics and semantics are." Your apology for this point is not necessary. Remember, *I* apologized for apparently misinterpreting your opening statement. I told you that I would go with whatever your argument happened to be and to just get on with it. What part of that did you not get? Very simply, I will consider debating the actual topic with you, *at a much later date*. I understand your belief that the semantics were somehow *important* in this case, but they weren't. I stated that I would accept whatever your argument happened to be based on. You ignored me for FIVE rounds and continued trying to make me give up one my argument and accept *your* argument, which I had *already done* in the second round. Good day sir, and to all you viewers out there, Vote Con. 1) http://science.Howstuffworks.Com... 2) http://www.Brainfitnessforlife.Com... 3) http://www.Webmd.Com... 4) http://www.Theage.Com.Au... 5) http://en.Wikipedia.Org...