Men and women are not completely equal and men naturally and biologically must lead women as women biologically are to follow.

Men and women are not completely equal and men naturally and biologically must lead women as women biologically are to follow.

So because they are not completely equal in these three things, we'll make this straightforward.

1. Physical

2. Mental

3. Emotion.

So because men are not completely equal physically and the potential ultimate capacity is there for this is the case, for women to be cared for and protected, they will have to be subject to the leadership and instruction of men.

Men are mentally more stable and sound to make decisions. So guess what.....

women would have to follow suit.

This is a segue into emotion.

Women naturally are more emotional more emotion based due to their nature for nuturing.

In times and situations to make decisions that are pressed for men to make, their focus will be triggered in handling social plights and goals . The emotion will be lacking into making them focus on things outside of chaos that the woman must follow to be led into calm and peace states of being.

"What do we mean by "equal"? It's not very well-defined. Equal needs to have an objective meaning for you to make a case. Otherwise, you will just keep changing the definition through the debate so it fits your agenda.

Also, most people I've seen argue for male headship never say that men and women aren't equal in dignity but that they simply have different roles. You are foreign to even their side."

We can use what you said to make it clear what equality is.

The following is what you stated:

"Women have better "endurance, resilience, and recovery." There's a lot of evidence women may actually be stronger than men. Then have to go through childbirth, which is something men never even have to worry about."

So being that women have this endurance in childbirth and bearing children unlike men, this is not an equal position to men.

Is this clear now?

We're going to come back to this point and it'll demonstrate my point in the topic and the best part.....you helped us showcased it.

Thanks.

"At the very least, men and women have physical advantages in different situations. It's not always one is objectively better. I think we can both show cases when men do better in some instances and women do better in others. They are both stronger than each other in different ways."

Thus proving my point again in your agreement not even realizing it.

Different situations are not equal. So there's no debate about men being completely equal to women. They're not.

I can't be equal to you in sports when you are superior. This is not even a debate about which is better. I just say there is inequality.

"Men are mentally more stable and sound to make decisions. So guess what.....

women would have to follow suit."

"What evidence is there for this claim?"

What is the evidence or what proves men have more stability due to the lack of emotion compared to women?

Ok, well we're talking about evidence, what you can see for yourself, not what somebody wrote, right.

So here's what we can witness for ourselves.

Women are portrayed as the most or more emotional let's say in media, documentaries and film.

Now I'm specifically speaking of media and film based on tragic events in history.

Very notable to the world and or in the northwestern hemisphere.

Due to the unequal...... unequal emotional capacity backed by biological findings, chemical balances and hormones, the emotion level , nurture level is vastly different that the male lacks the capacity to allow more rational based reasoning.

Which is pretty much essential particularly in times of peril, imminent pressures and dangers that lead to tragedy.

So in one of those tragic events, it was portrayed, women and children first.

The women were led to be protected and cared for but they had to be led first.

All this I've said can be corroborated in one's anecdotal experience.

"Men's decision making is only better because they focus on "traditional ways," which is just code for misogyny. Women are less bound and willing to break gender roles more than men. They don't let cultural boundaries affect their decision making."

Here again, the opposite side is agreeing with me again. Saying the decision making is better is making another polar distinction of inequality.

So there's no need to even challenge me any further. I can take what the opposing side has omitted so far as a concession.

It is the truth.

"Also, men have higher sex desire, and sex desire does indeed affect decision making. This is why men cheat so much more than women. Men will take stupid risks to get sex."

Just as a note, the topic is not about which is better or a competition. Definitely not a shot at the feminist movement.

Let's look at the statement, that men will take stupid risks to get sex.

Being that men can place themselves in risk involved scenarios with women thus including women, those women ought to be protected and guided out of those scenarios as they are being endangered.

So well meaning naive women can and will biologically rely on the man's leadership, direction and compliance to consent.

When the man is informed and she is under informed, she can't consent to what she doesn't know and therefore by default relays to the man in the decisions.

Now you the opposite side already stated or conveyed men's decision making is better.....with whatever caveat you wanna plug...to say theirs is better... doesn't make a difference in the reason why just the difference in decision making.

So being that they are better as you say, let and accept the so-called better decision makers make the decisions in benefit to women, leading and guiding them as the topic puts forth.

"This is a myth. It's just that society says men have to hide their emotions. Plus, emotions are what makes humans human. Animals can have emotions, but they are still distinct from human emotions. Women being more emotional would just make women more human."

Ok so if we say men hide their emotions so that it's not much of a road block for rational judgment to be executed as opposed to women that are " more human ", this is still a disparity between the two and why one is enabled to take lead.

So bottom line, you agreed with me more than we expected.

I rest my case.

Any questions for me, come on with them.

By the way, to circle back to women childbearing , women will need protection.

Women because of them being a vessel for mankind, they're cared for especially as being the physically weaker vessel .

This will fall under the lead of the stronger vessel, the man. For safety and care of a woman with child, she moreover will require care and attention.

Which with the lead of a man that is responsible for the child will be accountable so she biologically must follow.

I'll leave it there for any questions for this round.

"Yeah, it is not equal. Women are stronger in this position. Men are put into infinite debt to women. Society cannot survive without women."

I know you won't deny women must have the protection of men particularly during childbearing.

This is why employer companies offer leave due to giving the female employee rest from her work particularly if her line of work is strenuous in nature.

"Both sexes have advantages and disadvantages. No one is better than the other."

I'm not talking about "better". I'm talking about equal. Let's not conflate this here.

"Please show evidence and not just assert things."

I guess I'll repeat again where this can be shown.

This is what I mean by portrayal according to the following:

"So here's what we can witness for ourselves."

Pay attention......what we can witness is what we call evidence or what we should have learned by now concerning proof....I don't know how old you are, but what you should learn what evidence is basically what I'm saying.

"Women are portrayed as the most or more emotional let's say in media, documentaries and film.

Now I'm specifically speaking of media and film based on tragic events in history.

Very notable to the world and or in the northwestern hemisphere.

Due to the unequal...... unequal emotional capacity backed by biological findings, chemical balances and hormones, the emotion level , nurture level is vastly different that the male lacks the capacity to allow more rational based reasoning.

Which is pretty much essential particularly in times of peril, imminent pressures and dangers that lead to tragedy.

So in one of those tragic events, it was portrayed, women and children first.

The women were led to be protected and cared for but they had to be led first."

So now what are you going to say? Are the documented events not true?

I can't speak to your experience but mine corroborates with the events.

Let's look at things biological backed by a chemical hormonal basis.

Due to the oxytocin level in women in comparison, the emotional and nurturing aspects are more concentrated in reference to bonding, social matters and empathy.

So in times of deciding logical things , men have these lack of hormonal levels in order to respond with less emotion.

It's logic versus emotion. Putting feminism aside. Do you follow all this?

"Show me it's historical with evidence if it really is as true to real life as you claim. You said "we can witness for ourselves." Enough just asserting things. You're basically just saying it's so obvious that you don't need proof. Is that how desperate you are?"

Well it comes down to being honest with yourself. Now I can't help your experience. My experience has always been that women are more emotional than men . This creates a disparity in times where it requires the lead of men in logical based situations.

For instance, to protect women , the lead of men says "women and children first".

Why? It's because they're the weaker vessels to protect. Now if you don't believe women are more emotional in turn acting less rational because it has not been your experience and you don't believe certain tragedies have happened in the past for instance , ships that have sunk and all male ship officers led the women to safety, if you don't believe all the interviews, testimonials, documentaries, which is media, if you don't believe none of that, I can't really help you.

When it comes to witnessing things for yourself, all you have is your experience.

Now basically you can be dishonest and say "prove it to me". So it's like saying prove I had these experiences and I'll just deny them. Which is dishonest. Alternately, you could be honest and say all your experiences have had the absence of natural male leaders.

However , the topic has already been proven by the fact that women naturally are the child bearers and vessels of breeding mankind and have to be cared for by men which naturally falls under their guided leadership.

This is why women naturally are composed of more bodily fat for the protection and nourishment of their vessels. So hence, men have less in ratio to that but more muscular composition, more testosterone, more strength and don't have the same bonding chemical that adds more emotion that is there from the mother to the unborn child.

Now if you want to deny a mother with child bonding, you deny that evidence which correlates to oxytocin which relates to nurturing, emotion causing the disparity between roles of men and women.

I'll tell you one thing. You keep saying assertion but a mother is not asserting her affection, the child is not asserting a bond. A mother may assert her confidence in who she is. Which is a woman not equal to a role in a man. Nevermind feminism.

"Look, both sides do certain things better than the other. No side is objectively better. There is no accurate and objective way to even determine who is better."

Find somebody to debate what's better. I'm not debating it. I pointed out the distinction you made which equates to an uneven balance. That's all.

"Again, my point is men make risks that are unnecessary. This is harmful for them and the rest of society. Men should not be leading."

Then tell us who should lead and back it up with evidence.

"Stop placing the adjective "naive" in front of the word "women." This makes it a specific type of women. Not all women are naive."

So not all women are naive but just the women that are makes them naive ....what?

Don't dance around with "specific type ".

They're still women dude.

"The man being "informed" and the woman being "under informed" is a specific type of situation. Stop making generalizations. Not all situations are the same."

Ok so we can talk about the situations that apply. You still haven't refuted them so accept your concession on that .

"Your debate titles says men "must lead." If women lead, men don't lead. If no one leads, men don't lead. That ruins what you are defending as pro."

This has nothing to do with the statement I made. But unique viewpoint you have.

"Emotionality is all cultural. According to the tile of this debate, it is about nature and biology. That is all culture. Defend actual biology."

I've gone over and over with the instance of childbearing which can't be refuted. Women are BIOLOGICALLY the weaker vessel which must be cared for by the stronger vessel the men. That's why we have hunters and gatherers.

I rest my case .

And case closed.

You done fell off . Are you still on this planet?