That only women should be allowed to vote

So to the proposition... clearly it is the case that sometimes in secret topics we are asked to defend a position, or indeed promote one, that perhaps goes against the grain of ones natural position on the matter. So it is the case here... almost universally the freedom for all to vote, both men and women, is recognised. I would never argue outright that men should be removed of the right to vote, however I will play devils advocate here and propose why, for a period of time, a women only vote could hold benefits that are not immediately obvious.

I would ask that anyone judging does so not on the proposal directly (like me you assuredly wouldn't vote in favour of such a proposition), but on the merits of both arguments and whether myself or my opponent has done the better job in presenting the case. Such are the parameters of a fair and worthwhile debate; otherwise I may as well concede 

Sadly I have left this debate too close to the deadline, so I will have to make do with using this first round to outline how I will present my argument moving into the next round.

Firstly I will highlight the current state of affairs; who currently votes, what the voting trends are and how a monopoly on voting and elections is both bad for democracy and subsequent policy. I will argue that a women only vote for a period of time would have positive impacts for all.

I will then present a summary of how women vote in direct comparison to men, showing that women are usually more peace loving, more harmonious and more egalitarian.

Finally, I will argue that a period of women only voting would redress the balance of inequality that has blighted our history as human beings since the very first election in Ancient Greece.

I look forward to this debate and I apologise to my opponent for this perfunctory opening.

For this round I will simply ask some questions for clarification and outline my plan in a similar way to my opponent then we can begin fairly in the nest round.

So my questions of clarification are as follows:

How long is the period of time that woman are allowed to vote for?

Will this be governed by a certain number of election cycles?

Why is it that the period of time you choose will be effective at achieving the aims you want?

Are you setting this as a worldwide policy and debate or a UK one (I assume you are UK based from you're picture)?

Are there other marginalised group that this policy would include/ not include?

Do you think war is necessary?

How are different parties likely to react to this policy and what will that mean for the female voters?

The last two were just questions rather than questions of clarification.

So to present my argumentation (subject to adjustment later). 

I will look at the direct harms of this policy and show their long term outcomes to politics and why this is bad for female voters.

I will also look at the necessity of balanced opinions in voting.

Then I will show how this creates greater long term inequality for women particularly in party campaigns and positions of power.

I look forward to the rest of the debate.

 As a side note, I clicked on 'related debates' and saw that this debate has occurred twice before; neither got past the first round and neither included more than a sentence. I would say that already, in this debate between two women, we have exemplified not only that there is a very real need for more female involvement in politics, but that when women are engaged, a positive and useful dialogue develops more often than not.

In response to my opponents questions, I would like to propose that we frame the debate in the following way:

For this round I will lay out the analysis for the arguments I set out in the first round.

A government is elected to protect the interests off all people equally. This means that policies are created which affect different groups of people in society. In order for their to be an accountable decision on whether a policy is effective and fair from the point of view of the people who would be impacted then they must be included in the democratic process. The only time that the the population of a country has the ability to voice this and affect the outcome of policies is during elections. This also extends to policies that might have to happen but could not have been discussed during the campaign. This means that when you cut out a significant proportion of the population they cannot vote in their own interests and other groups do not have the necessary understanding of their lived experiences to know whether or not changes to policies directly affecting the silenced groups will make their situation better or worse. This means that the best policy might not be enacted.

2. direct harms of this policy

Allowing women control for one election cycle will not make up for the years in which they could not vote but it will make men very angry with women. They feel that thy are not being allowed representation and that their interests are not being protected by the Government. The long term effect of this is that, while for the cycle politicians might pander to the female vote, afterwards they will ignore female voters and focus on male voters because the women have had their chance. The reason this happens is because the majority of MPs are male. This would mean that women are more likely ignored in politics in the future.