Women have equal rights but are not the same as men.

Since I believe there has been no 'real' argument so far I have decided to summarise my points and further clarify them. I will start with... --------------------------------------------------Burden of proof----------------------------------------------------------- You keep mentioning impossible burden, but I'm not sure you understand what it means. Once I've made a valid point it is your turn to make an argument against it, which I have yet to see. By 'impossible burden' I assume you are referring to the 'burden' you mentioned in your first round; The 'burden of proof'. To clarify what this means I will use the quote 'When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim. This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.' [1] I believe this demonstrated how I have met the 'burden of proof', now it is time for you to meet your 'burden of proof'. You have not argued to how women don't have the same 'rights' as men. I believe that men and women have the same natural 'rights' and have given my reasoning, now you have to explain why you think it's wrong. I have shown to you that men and women aren't the same, in the fact of sexual orientation. This shows that there can be exclusion of one gender or another in 'attraction'. To clarify on this I will define my meaning of 'attraction' as "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, physical or romantic attractions to persons"... of either gender. You now have to refute these points. As you might like to say 'the impossible burden' is now yours. [1] ------------------------------------------You disagree with natural rights?------------------------------------------------- The definition of rights is; 'Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.' [2] Then there are Natural rights which are; 'Natural rights are rights which are derived from nature. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.' [3] The rights I am debating for here are natural rights. You have to explain why you disagree with why men and women have the same natural 'rights'. ----------------------------------------You disagree that women aren't the same?------------------------------------------ You have to also explain why men and women *are* the same. They either *are* or *aren't*, using the law of the excluded middle [4]. I've given my reasoning for aren't, but so far you've only said that men aren't the same also. Sexual orientation shows how men can be classed as similar enough to be grouped as men and it shows the same for women. It also shows how they can be placed in different classes. This shows men and women are not the same, and you have to argue against that. ----------------------------------------------------Devil's advocate----------------------------------------------------------- In the next round I expect all you will do is make a 'strawman' [5] based on, 'you haven't met your impossible burden', 'you can't change what has been established', your argument to get around proving men and women are the same relying on your fallacy against my first argument which would prove my 'argument' incorrect at least partially. I have shown how I've met this 'burden' however. I have also kept true to what has been established and changed nothing. I have given 'proof' for all my arguments, and you have given non. This also means you will have to argue that men and women *are* the same. It is still on you to provide the 'burden of proof' which you have been avoiding since round one. I don't believe you can do any such thing. Therefore I believe my argument stands as correct and yours as incorrect. -----------------------------------------------------Closing speech------------------------------------------------------- I'd like to thank con for agreeing to debate this point, even though their position seems like a losing battle to me. They didn't go with out a fight, and I had fun arguing my point, I hope they had fun too . What I believe will lose them the argument as I stated previously is the lack of realisation that he now has a 'burden of proof'. For all my points shown and clarified above I would like so say vote pro, it's the only way to go. ;) --------------------------------------------------------Citations------------------------------------------------------------- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...