Men are better than women.

"I stated "..making them better suited to the survival and technological advancement..." I apologize for leaving one word out of my summary." This is the problem here. You attempt to make arguments based on unsound arguments. You did not simply "[leave] one word out of [your] summary." You also changed survival to survivability. There is a difference in the two, as I attempted to demonstrate in the previous reply, but that you failed to recognize due to your apparent lack of logic. By changing the word to "survival," you can simply negate possible denial of said argument under the rationale that the human race will not survive unless there is a female egg, a male sperm, that the male sperm fertilizes said egg which develops within the female womb. Thus you can not possibly argue that men play a greater role in determinng the "survival" of mankind. That is of course unless, you want me to bring into play possibilities in which we procreate by unnatural means, which are certainly possible. Regardless, I should not be placed under the restriction of having to do so because you have flawed logical thinking and can not understand anything I write. Also, you turn "biological and evolutionary concerns" into "biological differences." Again two different things here. So no, you can not, apologize for "leaving one word out of [your] summary. "I apologize to my opponent for appearing to misinterpret what he was stating." This is the problem with your logic; you think you can assert whatever you want as true simply because you want it to be true. You think that it's not possible you ACTUALLY could have misinterpreted something because you don't believe you did. You didn't appear to misinterpret. You did misinterpret. "**"However for numerous biological and evolutionary concerns, the male gender is better suited to ensuring the survivability and technological advancement of the human race."**" First off, that does not imply these are the ONLY reasons. I simply made the assertion that they're are in fact numerous biological and evolutionary concerns. Second, the clear fact that you think "evolutionary concerns" can not include anything other than the physiological differences between man and woman, nor anything other than a "biological difference," is also flawed in logic. So despite that you are under the impression that: "It was clearly a misinterpretation on my part; as my opponent was obviously using such biological differences as the main base of his argument, I assumed that this would be the majority part and main qualifier of his argument, odd as that may sound," you are still wrong! No, you can not possibly deduce that I am even using "biological differences" as the "majority part and main qualifier of [my] argument from reading the statement: "However for numerous biological and evolutionary concerns, the male gender is better suited to ensuring the survivability and technological advancement of the human race.""If my opponent is satisfied with the semantics of what we are currently debating, he may feel free to begin said debate at any time. I would like to ask my opponent to keep any further queries or objections regarding semantics or specifics of wording to the 'comments' section, rather than waste an entire round attempting to paint me as some sort of moron who cannot comprehend or put together a rational argument."To begin with, how can you assume that I am "attempting to paint [you] as some sort of moron who cannot comprehend or put together a rational argument," based on the entirety of information given to you in either the first or second round of the argument? You have no reason to assume that. I'd argue you might have some reason NOW, considering the statements I just made earlier in THIS post: "Regardless, I should not be placed under the restriction of having to do so because you have flawed logical thinking and can not understand anything I write" and "you failed to recognize due to your apparent lack of logic." You clearly did in fact not only misinterpret what I said, but then attempt to "apologize to [your] opponent for *appearing* to misinterpret what he was stating." You appear to be under the impression that after you assume some thing true, and someone attempts to present a logical reason as to why you assumed false, you can counter-argue with another ASSUMPTION that you couldn't have assumed false in the first place. What would be the point in attempting to debate you?Not to mention this is not about semantics. This is about your thinking that, as a mere term of acceptance, you can negate possible arguments to my case based on unfounded assumptions you have made from misinterpretation--and clear misrepresentation--of what I said. I'm not going to debate something with you when you don't agree as to what we are debating; much less attempt to do so when you try to negate my arguments by misinterpreting what I said and establishing your ASSUMPTIONS as the *"opponent"s (my) debate premises."* The "premises" dictate what is and isn't up for discussion. As said so many times, you are attempting to DECIDE what MY premises are based on your misinterpretation and illogical assumptions. Not to mention the ignorance of the possibility that you could have done so to follow. I am more than happy to debate the topic under the premises that I established; not the premises you attempt to establish by forming false and illogical assumptions as to what said premises are, and especialy not when you attempt to represent your misunderstanding of the premises AS MY premises to being with.