Men are better than women.

"..."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."Yes, it really does. It is physically impossible for a female to posess a brain that resembles the anatomical structure, neurochemical makeup, etc of the brain. I'm not talking about "hormones" here, I'm talking about the different ways in which we think!! This is confounded by your TERMS OF ACCEPTANCE THAT YOU HAVE STILL YET TO CHANGE. "I accept my opponent"s debate premises being the physiological difference between men and women qualifying men as "better" in the sense of making them "better suited to the survival and technological advancement of the human race". GREAT. So the only argument I can make are the physiological differences, but even many of those differences don't count. And I wasn't using the example of a man giving birth to illustrate the point that those are the biological differences I'm discussing. All I was doing was pointing out the most clear cut obvious reasong that we MIGHT not be designed for the same purpose. Is that unreasonable? "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." No crap. I've already made it known to you in previous discussion that I think there are men smarter than 99% of women and there are women smarter than 99% of men. Exceptions are not what matter here. This is what you don't realize. We are comparing the "male and female sex of the species Homo sapiens sapiens." Not Sally to John. But here you go again: "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." Enormous majority? You just dont understand what you're saying. Sure, the female lion is certainly capable of taking down prey with deadly efficiency. So is the male lion. It's not a "physical impossiblity" for them to complete the action of taking down prey. 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. Do you think that the male lion is "mildly-to-moderately" better? I hear the crying and complaining already. "Well animals don't apply here! Thats just one difference!" Blah-blah-blah what you don't get is that I'm providing an analogy to demonstrate your logic pattern itself. What you're saying is that because Sally can account for small differences and develop the same mathematical and logical reasoning capacity as John, there is no significant difference across the entire male gender and female gender. While that's bullcrap to begin with, the differences are even more significant at the extreme end of the spectrum. 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. You think a woman can be the greatest quantum physicist in the world because "she wants to be?" We're talking about the elite of the elite. This is where the "physically impossible" difference of women not having the same brain as a male shows up. It's not just about education and psychological development at this level. This is the level where even the most minute of differences (not that I'm saying they are minute) have the greatest of effects. Hell women have been doing the cooking for at least thousands of years, and yet the best chefs in the world are still MALES! Does a female not posess the same ability to cook? Hell no. So why are the best chefs in the world still males? This is what I would like to discuss in debate. I havn't even begun to discuss why this is. And when you combine the reasons for this with the reasons for man's brain naturally being better suited to excelling at the most elite level of science, how could you possibly even think that men aren't better suited to ensuring the survivability and technological advancement of mankind? "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."Your logic states that Sally can be just as good as John, so the OVERALL differences between the male and female gender aren't significant. And I've already mentioned to you in previous discussion how "'learned' or cultural/social differences in the way those two genders are treated as they develop," are evolutionary concerns that demonstrate a rather consistent pattern for almost 2 MILLION years. But you don't get this either. Another key point to my argument that you took out by limiting the topic to "biological differences." I tried to get this across to you in Round 2, 3, and 4. I would be more than happy to properly debate the subject if you don't try to modify the terms of acceptance. I would be even happier to host a live online chat debate with you. Moderated if you like. If not I suggest we begin a new debate and I will attempt to put forth more clear statements and rules in the first round. I will take a look at the format others use to set the guidelines for the debate and try to model them after that. I apologize if you did not clearly understand what I said. There is an apparent dispute as to what the specifics and semantics are. I'm new to the site here and figured that we would simply debate on the terms that I put forth. Regardless, we have still yet to properly engage in debate of the subject at hand.