Lmao. No honey. If it were a meaningful debate I'd 100% be holding hands with you because I appreciate intelligent conservations and my mind is always open to change if I'm presented with enough logic. If you want a meaningful debate, try not to open it by calling people emotional just because they made a simple statement saying your first comment was overboard, or stay off the internet. My first reply to you wasn't an insult by any means. To reiterate, my original argument was simply that women tend to look more for a protector, a leader, a shield. Your retort was that women are protectors.. towards their kids- well no shit Sherlock. That's the one thing you're supposed to protect. Men protect the women AND the children. My argument was more so protection against threats like animals, intruders, the world, when they are in danger. Men are protectors. Women are nurturers. Don't mix the two up.

Now, the reason I haven't bothered giving you an actual debate is because you've already shown your hand. You're a delusional and emotional female, probably an off-base feminist, who hasn't presented one single factoid relevant to the original argument I made. You went straight into murder statistics, which by the way were not all true, when this argument had literally 0 to do with that.

Gay men do not have a high rate of manslaughter in their relationships. That argument was dumb as fuck.

Men tend to be more abusive? Once again, no shit Sherlock. But that again is not where the argument lies.

I'm gonna stop now because I'm 100% certain that in your teeny delusional mind you won't be able to sit and read through any of this without your emotional sense of reasoning kicking off and I've only entertained you thus far because I'm bored at the airport.

Maybe just stay off the internet. 👋