Women should not play a ministerial role that consists of teaching men

Because the topic never specified what religion we were to discussed, that was to be defined in round one of this debate as required by Dabate. org protocol. The specification I provided in round 1 was that we would be discussing the Pali Canon which is in fact a form of the bible, being a document of sacred writings. My opponent provided no such specifications in the first round therefore his entire argument was based off of terms that simply weren't there. His justification for this gaping hole in his case was that "everyone knows what I mean". After making this assumption, I pointed two things out: 1: I did not know. I have a very wholeistic outlook on the world, and when I see a topic such as religion, I simply refuse to assume that everyone shares the same views as me. So to make this topic more specific, I simply narrowed the point of discussion down by defining the topic to a specific religion in the first round witch my opponent failed to accomplish. 2: My opponent has based his entire argument on the assumption that we would look on to his profile and use his information to conclude that his topic was based on his views as a single individual. I would not have included my 66% stat, had my opponent specified the religion of focus in round one as I did. My 66% stat was one to simply refute the assumption that everyone knows what he meant. You must consider as voters, that in a world of massive diversity and culture, no two people are alike. In this beautiful melt pot of beliefs, we must never assume that our neighbor has the same opinions as us. We must be careful with our statements and think beyond the parameters of the environment in which we were raised. We must consider our brothers and sisters, and pay them the tribute of considering the possibility that their beliefs differ from our own, because it is this beautiful diversity that defines us as human. I choose to define the topic under Buddhism for the very reason my opponent brought up last round. only 6% of the world believes it. I choose Buddhism for this debate to open your eyes to a minority of the world. At this point in the debate, I do not care who you vote as winner. If you believe the affirmative won this debate, then so be it. I am simply asking all of you to consider the views of others when making a general statement. The minority is too often overlooked in this world, and I challenge every one of you to embrace the diversity that composes the many cultures of the human race. Do not assume that your views are the same as that of everybody else, because in this magnificent world we have much to learn from each other, and the only way to achieve this, is by acknowledging the differing opinions of the human race. It is unfair of my opponent to base his entire argument off the assumption that everyone will consider his words with a Christian outlook. I request that my opponent as well as voters to eliminate one-sided bias from statements such as these. To assume that your audience will abide to the same parameters of your own beliefs is a bias that I encourage you all to suppress on a day to day basis. Whoever wins this debate by vote is unimportant to me at this point. So long as you all heed my words and consider the diversity of society before making any kind of statement, I have won with myself, and that is enough. Thank you.