Women should not be allowed to vote or have authority

Pro claims that my sources "prove absolutely nothing." On the contrary, I provided studies which included factual evidence with empirical, observable data and scientific explanations as well as psychological and neurobiological details about why his claims were wrong. That is not the same as copy and pasting someone else's opinion from the internet, and using that as a "source" as Pro alludes all sources can amount to. As I explained in the last round, the difference between facts and opinions is that facts can be proven. I've backed up my facts with science, analysis, and thorough explanations. Meanwhile, Pro hasn't been able to back up his claims at all, and in fact says that he can't. Instead, he suggests that all you have to do is "take a woman shopping" and that alone will solidify his case. Clearly, my references which have been peer reviewed and subjected to scholarly scrutiny ought to hold more weight than a biased observation of some females. In defense of my sources, Pro claims multiple times that I cannot prove that they are true. That is false. My sources should be accepted as true because of the research they used to draw conclusions. For example, consider the source of The American Journal of Political Science which outlines how women politicians tend to be more successful at securing money for their district, and passing legislation. Their conclusions are based on factual evidence: they can prove that women secured more money for their districts by simply looking up political facts and figures and comparing male vs. female achievement. It's not an "opinion" that women raised more money; it is a fact that you can look up. Similarly, the psychological studies are based on neurobiological comparisons between male and female brains. Again, these are not based on opinions, but observable data. Everything I have attributed to my sources should be considered factually accurate, since Pro never once disputed the information I provided and instead challenged the idea that facts can even exist. While Pro acknowledges that women are capable of being both smart and thinking logically, he insists that they put emotions before rationalization in the decision making process. Once again, this disregards all of the points I have made outlining exactly how and why having a good understanding of emotions is actually important in the decision making process. He also once again ignored my points that 1) men exhibit different emotions more strongly than women, including anger which is detrimental to the decision making process; 2) there are various forms of intelligence which are different according to each individual, and cannot be grouped so massively according to sex. Gender is fluid with arbitrary distinctions based on culture and other variables.Pro continues, "If feminists are only seeking equality, then where are the feminists when it comes the father's rights?" First, I've explained several times that this is not relevant to the resolution. Please extend my arguments regarding current public policy being shaped and influenced by both men and women in society. As such, it doesn't prove that eliminating women from the voting process would yield a different political outcome. Second, Pro disregards my contention that feminists seek to attain certain rights for women. This does not mean taking away or inhibiting the rights of men. Feminists come in all forms and each have different priorities. Securing the rights of a father are typically not among them. Similarly, regarding domestic violence, over 95% of cases of domestic violence involve the female being abused. If men want to be proactive in securing certain protections, they should be free to form their own coalitions to do just that. However, a key point of the debate can be seen here: Pro thinks that feminists advocating on behalf of the advancement of their sex is detrimental to society. This proves my point that keeping women out of the voting process, and allowing only men to have influence over governance is also detrimental. That means there may be no group advocating on behalf of half the population, women, or considering what issues might be important or prevalent to them. It is also oppressive as they have no voice or say in the laws that dictate and determine their culture and often protect their livelihood. Pro then talks about the Secret Societies influencing (manipulating) the government. Living in a democratic republic, part of the voting process means that the voices of the people are heard through their vote. We have every reason to believe that people's votes and not a government conspiracy has dictated public policy. Further, Pro completely failed to explain how not allowing women to vote or hold power would somehow eliminate the power and influence of these alleged secret societies. Why wouldn't they have control even if women did not have a say? Isn't their manipulative power also held over male voters? This is one of many flaws in Pro's case. He hasn't explained why so-called corrupt judges would not be appointed even if women could not vote.In conclusion, Pro has completely failed to meet his burden. He hasn't proven that men think more logically than women-- I've dismantled that notion. Additionally, he hasn't negated or even responded to many of my arguments. Please extend them all. I've proven:- It's not true that men are smarter or more rational than women- It's not true that men's judgment isn't clouded by detrimental emotions (such as anger)- Women's emotions often facilitate the rationalization process- Women tend to possess traits that make them successful leaders (such as a willingness for collaboration) - Cultural differences dictate different societal norms for men and women- Women have different but equally valuable strengths- Feminism has benefited society- Current policy might still be the same even if women didn't vote- We have evidence of women's success in business and politics- Women have a different vantage point than men; inclusion is important for everyone - Not allowing women to have a say in the law is oppressiveThank you