Instigator / Pro
FishChaser's avatar
0
FishChaser
1553
rating
77
debates
55.19%
won
Topic
#4759

Black/red pill VS blue pill

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Tags
dating strategy
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
Intelligence_06's avatar
0
Intelligence_06
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
FishChaser's avatar
FishChaser
Pro
#1
Black pill: dating success is mostly genetics
Red pill: Dating success is mostly effort
Blue pill: Dating success is mostly individual preference and finding the right person for you

My job is to prove that there are universal rules (especially for straight males) to who is successful and who isn't in dating and that this is partially written in stone and partially something you can take certain steps to improve at. Con's job is to prove that dating is mostly a fairy tale where everyone has a chance if they find the right person. 


The foundation of everything is the black pill. If you are ugly enough then literally no one will be attracted to you, if you are in the middle red pill becomes relevant and if you are genetically conventionally attractive pretty much everyone will agree that you are attractive even if they wouldn't date you. There is something called the halo effect where people project other positive qualities onto you if they find you attractive, so even the parts of blue pill that are correct are subject to black pill truths about universal attractiveness. 

Please watch this video for proof of the black pill, sources used in the video are below. 

Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
Con
#2
What are we arguing?

Essentially, this is another of those debate topics. Except numerous debate topics are based on things that cannot be inherently or intrinsically proven true, for example, Trump vs. Biden. For such a topic, all we can do, including the candidates themselves, is to prove which side is more plausible than the other. That is when we see Trump droning and Biden telling him to shut up. Of course they possess no definitive or tautological proof that Biden or Trump is the ideal leader(or if the ideal leader is even within these two to begin with), because and as a result all they can prove is that they are better than the other.

Similar is with this one. We do not have 100%-accurate assessments on measuring whether a man believes more in black pill, red pill, or blue pill. We can only speculate from their digital or physical footprints and even then, only more extroverted beings who like to share what they like such as Andrew Tate can be used as sufficient examples. To give an example, do you know if I believe in Blue Pill or not? Of course no. And that won't be necessary. Such as the topic is similar to such as "(classified event with all records lost) is caused or influenced by (famous person)". We have no evidence, solid ones, we can only as much as speculate. 

For such topics that cannot be absolutely proven, we can only prove that one side is more plausible than the other, which is what I am doing and what I can do at most. I am here not to prove that the Blue Pill is definitively true, that would be impossible; I am here to prove that "blue pill" as a theory or paradigm is more plausible as one that represents the mentality of men currently within the issue of dating/finding a girlfriend or wife, etc., compared to "black/red pill".

"Pro's Stance" is Impossible

As stated one paragraph before, we are arguing about which interpretation is the more plausible one. Pro has made himself crystal clear that he intends to argue for "black/red pill" from the start of the debate as early as you can go. The problem is that: you can't have both.

Let's look at the definitions Pro has given in the description section.
Black pill: dating success is mostly genetics
Red pill: Dating success is mostly effort
Blue pill: Dating success is mostly individual preference and finding the right person for you
The fact that red and black pill are seperate theories implies that the terms after "mostly" do not overlap, meaning that the three factors, "Genetics, Effort, Individual preference," they add up to no more than 100% assuming 100% is the aggregate of everything that counts here. Inspecting the definitions yield the same conclusion that the proportion on genetics and the proportion on efforts are mutually exclusive and do not overlap: Because currently, effort does not inherently alter genetics, and as of now, gene-editing is illegal for the most part.

Look at the definition for "genetics" here.
Genetics: 
the genetic makeup and phenomena of an organism, type, group, or condition
Genetic: 
a: of, relating to, or involving genetics
b: of, relating to, caused by, or controlled by genes
Genes:
a specific sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that is located usually on a chromosome and that is the functional unit of inheritance controlling the transmission and expression of one or more traits by specifying the structure of a particular polypeptide and especially a protein or controlling the function of other genetic material
Basically.

The first source within this written section outlines that changing the nucleotide sequence has deemed illegal and is thus implausible to be changed by effort. Now, any treatment after that would not be genetics-changing. Chemotherapy just kills cells without changing the DNA itself for you, and Plastic surgery does not introduce any new genes, at least it should not be introducing any. And no, just because some medicines change how some genes are expressed, it does not increase the prevalence of "genetics" due to the fact that all it changes is how one's body interprets the genes, not the genes themselves. Of course, it is just illegal, not impossible, but the fact such maneuvers are deemed illegal makes such remedial acts unrealistic for the average man, aight? Which is to say that the interpretation that "genetics" and "effort" are not mutually exclusive is not plausible in explaining today's human beings. And we are trying to argue which side has the more plausible interpretation.

So yes, "genetics" and "effort" are indeed mutually exclusive factors in dating, and one does not determine one's own genes. Now let's look back at what Pro is trying to argue.
Black/red pill
So, a combination between the black pill and red pill theories. That is also what Pro's R1 argument intends: a combination of the two. But, is that possible? The answer is negative. We have already established that in a realistic framework of how the world works, "genetics" and "effort" are mutually exclusive and do not overlap, meaning that were this theory true, p(genetics) + p(effort) must not exceed 100% as that would violate how proportions work in mathematics. Yet "Black pill" intends that dating success is "mostly" genetics and "Red pill" intends that it is "mostly" effort, in which the term "mostly" refers to over half, or 50%. That is not possible, as a total of 100% may not house two factors each 50% and more, let alone a potential factor.

One may also contend that "mostly" could just refer to the one with the largest proportion: for example, if A takes up 40%, B takes up 30% and C takes up 30%, then the collective may be described as "mostly" A. However, the flaw in this line of reasoning is even more blatant: First off, if two factors take up the same amount, neither is the largest out of all; secondly, no two factors can be both of greater proportion than each other if we consider the statistics static. This means that even if Black pill and Red pill may be true as the theories only concern one proportion, the theory of whatever "black/red pill" is would therefore be entirely impossible.

And what is "blue pill"? Well, because it concerns only one proportion, it is entirely possible that such proportion is the most considered in terms of proportion. The conclusion thus becomes obvious.

  1. The topic, being impossible to be absolutely proven, can only be disputed by which theory is the more plausible one.
  2. Pro's theory, "black/red pill", is entirely implausible, while Con's theory, "blue pill", has non-zero plausibility.
  3. Con has proven that Con's theory is the more plausible one. Vote CON!
I rest my case.



Round 2
FishChaser's avatar
FishChaser
Pro
#3
Nowhere in Con's round 1 did he make an argument for the blue pill, instead he is intentionally misinterpreting my position because as his own profile admits he is an intellectually dishonest scum bag debater who will play word games and whatever else to get an edge instead of debating the actual topic. 


What are we arguing?
We're arguing if a combination of black and red pill or blue pill is more accurate as a view of how dating works. Your three paragraphs of bullshit are nothing but an attempt to dance around the topic.

The problem is that: you can't have both.

You clearly can have both because if you combine the two theories it no longer becomes one or the other and instead becomes some degree of one and some degree of the other. The reality is that none of the theories are entirely true on their own and even blue pill has truth to it. My position is that genetics are the foundation of what makes you attractive but as long as your genetics aren't too bad for you to have a chance, there are steps you can take to increase your attractiveness. It doesn't rely on direct gene editing but instead compensating for your genetics using other methods. In order to win the debate you should be arguing against this and for the blue pill instead of trying to get a cheap win but since you're a dick head who isn't here for an honest debate (which means you should lose conduct points also instead of me for pointing it out) I expect you to keep playing games.
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
Con
#4
Rebuttals
Nowhere in Con's round 1 did he make an argument for the blue pill, instead he is intentionally misinterpreting my position because as his own profile admits he is an intellectually dishonest scum bag debater who will play word games and whatever else to get an edge instead of debating the actual topic. 
Mind, voters, that Pro did not:
  • present any disagreement over that the purpose of this topic is to argue which interpretation is more plausible.
Therefore, the mode shall be considered conceded. With the settled mode of argument, it thus becomes clear that if Con shows that Pro's interpretation is impossible while Con's is, Con has made a valid argument towards his own side(yes, I am a "he"). 

Pro also did not:
  • contend that "effort" and "genetics" are realistically two distinct factors that are not considered the same thing.
This is equivalent of saying that the proportions representing these two do not overlap. Therefore, a realistic combination of the two would be entirely impossible as no two factors can each be the most prevalent one for entirely obvious reasons presented in the last round. Either Pro is arguing for something that is impossible or Pro is arguing something that is in reality neither instead of both. And mind you, the interpretation of "Genetics and Effort add up to be the most prevalent factor in dating success" is really neither because regardless of their sum, it is still impossible for both factors to be more than each other. And if the interpretation is "Either Blackpill is true, or Redpill is true", that would be another kind of mistaken, similarly to saying the position of "I think Communism could be correct, but Capitalism could be correct as well" as both Communism and Capitalism when in reality such is neither left or right, we call similar views "centrism".

Since we argue about the topic and not whatever comes after from Pro, we shall of course present concerns that Pro derailed Pro's own interpretation in order to rationalize his supposed view if such happens. Now, what is Con's so-called "interpretation"?

You clearly can have both because if you combine the two theories it no longer becomes one or the other and instead becomes some degree of one and some degree of the other.
That sounds an awful lot like "Genetics and Effort add up to be the most prevalent factor in dating success". Once again, I have presented why that isn't an argument to argue for both: because it is actually neither. 

In order to win the debate you should be arguing against this and for the blue pill instead of trying to get a cheap win but since you're a dick head who isn't here for an honest debate (which means you should lose conduct points also instead of me for pointing it out) I expect you to keep playing games.
Well, I am. I have argued that Pro's interpretation is impossible so Con's interpretation is the more plausible one. That is kind of what you think my direction within the arguments should be. And yes, I am here for honest debate, that is literally what I am doing, sticking to the topic itself and definitions themselves unlike Pro, whose interpretation in the argumentation is inconsistent with Pro's own definitions.

Conclusions
  • Pro has not contended that the purpose of this debate is to argue which side is the more plausible.
  • Pro has not contended that bluepill is possible.
  • Pro argues for an interpretation that is not what Pro is supposed to argue for.

  • As a result, Pro argued for naught. Since Con has already presented why Bluepill is plausible as an argument, Con is still in possession of his upper hand from last round.
I rest my case, :)

Round 3
FishChaser's avatar
FishChaser
Pro
#5
There is no contradiction inherent to combining black and red pill. Just because your height and the way your face looks etc. matter doesn't mean you can't go to the gym or style your hair better etc. Con did nothing but try to play stupid word games to make my case sound absurd while providing 0 arguments for the blue pill. 
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
Con
#6
Rebuttals

There is no contradiction inherent to combining black and red pill.
Con has provided basic math to show why this is not possible. Pro did not:
  • provide any disagreement over the basic math presented, such as "this does not represent the relationship between Black and Red pill";
  • Or to show that a valid combination of black and red pill is somehow possible, with mathematical foundation.
Therefore, this claim is baseless comparatively, for that I have shown why this is impossible and Pro has not that possible.

Just because your height and the way your face looks etc. matter doesn't mean you can't go to the gym or style your hair better etc.
Correct, but irrelevant, it does not prove that currently in a realistic manner, effort can change "genetics". The truth is that it can't.

Con did nothing but try to play stupid word games to make my case sound absurd while providing 0 arguments for the blue pill. 
I did. I showed that Con's interpretation of "blue pill" is the only one out of the two that has some plausibility, whereas Pro's interpretation is entirely and utterly implausible. Since Pro did not contend that for such a topic its purpose for us is to argue which side is more plausible as opposed to "ultimately true" because objective evidence does not exist for such topics, my proof is a sufficient one to prove that Blue pill wins in this clash. I rest my case. Roll conclusions.

  1. The topic, being impossible to be absolutely proven, can only be disputed by which theory is the more plausible one.
  2. Pro's theory, "black/red pill", is entirely implausible, while Con's theory, "blue pill", has non-zero plausibility.
  3. Con has proven that Con's theory is the more plausible one. Vote CON!
I rest my case.
[R1]

Conclusions
  • Pro has not contended that the purpose of this debate is to argue which side is the more plausible.
  • Pro has not contended that bluepill is possible.
  • Pro argues for an interpretation that is not what Pro is supposed to argue for.

  • As a result, Pro argued for naught. Since Con has already presented why Bluepill is plausible as an argument, Con is still in possession of his upper hand from last round.
I rest my case, :)
[R2]