Are women the "weaker sex" in today's world?

No, and there are several factors supporting this claim:

It’s not just a cliché to say that most women are unable to perform in labor-intensive fields requiring extreme physical strength.

Can women replace men in factories or industries where lifting heavy materials like concrete and steel is necessary?

A certain percentage of physically well-trained women may be able to replace some men. However, for the majority of women, it would only be possible with the help of additional equipment to overcome physical challenges. As a result:

A – Productivity in production may decrease.

B – The costs for supplementary equipment would increase.

Women face significant hormonal challenges that can lead to emotional instability, potentially influencing decisions on a broader scale. This emotional instability can notably impact behavior in stressful situations, leading to uncontrollable reactions.

Your emphasis on the historical discrimination against women is absolutely valid. Withstanding societal pressure and fighting for rights is an achievement worth celebrating. However, in our discussion, the question is whether women can fully replace men in all spheres. This requires an assessment of modern conditions, where gender restrictions have significantly diminished, especially in developed countries.

Without a doubt, the history of discrimination has influenced women’s opportunities. However, in today's world, equal conditions are largely provided (with exceptions in some regions). That said, we must address the question: if all restrictive factors are removed, can women fully replace men?

As you rightly pointed out, women are adaptive and capable of mastering professions traditionally dominated by men. Nevertheless:

Physical endurance: In professions requiring significant physical strength, only a certain percentage of women can perform the same tasks as men. Others would require supportive equipment, which increases costs and decreases productivity.

Psychological resilience: Women demonstrate high emotional intelligence, but stressful situations common in certain professions (military, rescue workers, pilots) may pose additional challenges.

Your argument about childbirth is interesting, but I believe the biological function of the female body is a natural attribute, not a competitive advantage in professions. Childbirth is a challenging process, but it is not unique to humans; it is shared across mammals. Equating this function with proof of women’s physical endurance in a general sense is not entirely accurate.

You mentioned Marie Curie as an example of significant female contribution to science. Her achievements are undeniable, but this represents an individual case, not a general trend.

Looking at the statistics:

Breakdown by category:

Argument 1:  I appreciate you taking the time to consider my points. However, it seems that your counter-argument boils down to, "Yes, these points are valid, but they are not common." The issue with this response is that you have previously stated that we should avoid gender generalizations and instead focus on individual capabilities. Besides, the topic of debate is whether women are the weaker sex. Your initial argument may stem from your belief that women are not capable of replacing men in all fields and are thus weaker. However, this does not support the idea that women are inherently a weaker sex. It only demonstrates what you subjectively standardize as a weaker sex.

 Argument 2:  Plus, if we are not to go by generalizations, as you yourself declared in the first round, then the number of women who can overcome these challenges is irrelevant. As you said in your own words, "There are women who successfully overcome biological challenges and demonstrate a high level of resilience." Therefore, if women are indeed capable of overcoming the very standards by which you judge them weaker compared to men, there can be no weaker sex because no defined limitations universally apply.

Argument 3: There can be no greater contradiction than to declare an entire gender as weaker, yet acknowledge that some members of that gender defy the very standards used to define weakness. Think about it, if the question were reversed and it was men who were being claimed as weaker than women due to the success of women in a particular field that men either struggled or failed at, wouldn't you, as a man, argue this stereotype to be born of bias? Wouldn't you also point to the contributions of men and say that the number of successful men is irrelevant to the fact that it can be done?

In conclusion, while my opponent has tried to argue that women are the weaker sex because they supposedly cannot replace men in all fields, and that while some women can defy this stereotype, they are few in number, this argument lacks sufficient reasoning and contradicts itself.

The question that should be asked of my opponent is how they define gender weakness. If it is defined as "Women cannot fully replace men," then it's a self-contradicting definition because there are areas men cannot replace women. And if it is instead defined by women being incapable due to biological weaknesses, then my opponent has not only failed to provide a proper example but has also argued against it by acknowledging that certain women can bypass their inherent biological weaknesses.

Neither men nor women are biologically the weaker sex. Both genders have their strengths and weaknesses that should be respected, acknowledged, and, if possible, overcome. These differences should never be used to label one gender as "weaker" than the other.

Since this was my first experience in debates, I acknowledge my defeat, as I made a considerable number of mistakes during this debate. I thank my opponent for this engaging discussion and humbly accept my loss. However, I will continue to practice and learn from my mistakes. ;)