Women are only attracted to your SMV, not who you are as a person (for Strawbbycake no one else will be accepted unless female)
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- 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
No information
Don't just take a woman's word for it when she says she dates a guy because he is funny etc. There is usually a bigger picture at play and dating a man could also mean she is using him and not actually that attracted to him.
Marko Jaric's face is a 5/10 but he is literally 6'7 and height is right up there with facial aesthetic in the things that make up male SMV. He is also a famous basketball player which gives him status and he is in good shape.
In order for the example to matter, Adriana Lima would have to date a guy who is "smart and funny" but also not famous/rich and under 6 feet tall.
Her new bf Andre Lemmers is also about a 5/10 in his face, but he is 6 feet tall and makes more money than Marko. If personality matters so much why doesn't Adriana date a man who is poor and short for his personality? She never seems to go for guys under 6 feet or guys who aren't millionaires.
The Never Give Up example is a much stronger example, but it still falls short of proving your point. Notice how being "cute" was the first thing that his wife noticed and not something about his personality, and since he is only "kinda" that implies she would place a higher value on someone who is "very" since she values cuteness in selecting a mate.
If female attraction goes beyond my concept of SMV, it should be possible for a man who is under 10/10 in SMV to be seen as 10/10 due to his personality. Even if that means he is a 9 and a woman only gives him one point to make him a 10, there should be an example of a guy being seen as PERFECT to a woman because of his personality. If you cannot be seen as a 10 because of superficial things like not being tall enough or not being handsome enough, then it cheapens the entire idea of romantic love.
Bebadobees boyfriend is a 7/10 facially and he is significantly taller than her. He is also white which is a massive advantage in general, but especially for getting a south east asian gf since whiteness is seen as very desirable in their culture. Statistically most women have a preference for white men.
Jay-Z is mega rich and super high status and is 6'2 while Beyonce is 5'7.
Madeline Argy only dated Central Cee because he is wealthy/famous and broke up with him. She will probably find someone richer and/or more attractive.
All of these guys follow the same pattern after looking that them and comparing different pictures. Also these girls who fawn over them don't know these guys, so how can the obsession be due to personality?
Lastly the stereotype about ugly guys getting with attractive girls is because people are harsher towards males when judging their attractiveness. For example if a guy is a 6 and gets with a girl who is also a 6, most people will see the female as more attractive. This isn't because the guy isn't a 6, but because a female 6 is pretty and a male 6 is mid.
It is also because it is more socially acceptable for women to make generalizations and stereotypes about men and not the reverse. If a woman complains that men hate fat women or hate tall women this is socially acceptable even though there are men who love fat women and men who love tall women. On the other hand if a male complains that women hate short men he is shamed and labelled as a misogynistic incel even though there is literally no such thing as a heterosexual woman who prefers short men over tall men.
You DO need to prove that a guy can be a 10/10 because if personality matters AT ALL then a guy with 99% SMV should be able to become a 100% because of his personality even if it's only 1% difference. If personality factors in on any level whatsoever than it should be able to make the difference between being perfect and not being perfect. This of course is the bare minimum, because if you need 99% for personality to make the difference then personality is still basically worthless to women. It would be much more reasonable if personality could give you 50% and you only need 50% in looks/height etc. If that was the case the blue pill would be valid but all I am asking you is for a sliver of the blue pill being correct in a highly black pilled reality.
As for the guys you said I didn't address, I did. Every guy you mentioned who is liked by girls despite "not being attractive" has attractive features. The modeling industry has techniques to make attractive features stand out more and unattractive ones stand out less. If you look at multiple pictures of these guys, especially when you contrast photoshoots with more casual pictures, you will see that what they end up looking like is inconsistent.
You are trying to reverse my accusations of being shallow, saying that I am the shallow one for assuming all women are shallow. Even if that was true, why would I care to "look on the inside" of a demographic that universally has no interest in getting to know me because I am short and ugly? Maybe women DO care about personality after you already have enough SMV for them to care about who you are in the first place. Who's point does this prove? It proves mine because the extent to which women care about you and are interested in you as a person is directly proportional to how attractive they think you are unless they are friendzoning you and if they are friendzoning you they will never care about you as much as someone they have romantic interest in.
Adriana Lima (pro):
Good example, a true 11 dating a mere 8... Pro was able to point to how awesome the guy is, and con's reply included Adriana stating "he's very athletic" which seems to be factors on pro's scale.
Never Give Up (con):
So an 8 marrying a 4 (maybe even as low as 3?), that goes much better for con. Pro's defense that the wife thought there was something cute about him, doesn't confirm it was a rare physical attraction or any other part of his scale, and con is able to explain it away as an attraction to his personality (which is the point of the debate right, not that women marry men they aren't attracted to, but if they are capable of romantic attraction).
List of Famous Hunks (pro):
I am not even reading this. There's no way it can help con's case. Maybe they have good personalities in addition to being incredibly hot?
Beyoncé (n/a):
"Any place or thing in the universe can be up to 104% perfect. That's how you got Beyoncé."
-Michael, The Good Place
You can't put her on the scale. Every guy is beneath her by all standards.
...
The big problem for pro was he made the big declaration of NEVER, but let con wholly lead the debate. If redoing this, each side should be limited to a couple examples at the start to contrast, rather than allowing room for Gish Gollops.
ARGUMENTS
For one, I thought Pro did a good job of defining SMV early in the debate. He intelligently expanded the definition to encompass a man's alpha energy and "game," which might be confused for genuine personality. He intelligently points out that women will even fall in love with serial killers if they are attractive enough.
The real meat of the debate is set up by Pro when he challenges Con to propose one woman who demonstrates a genuine dedication to a man's personality, and not their SMV. Con makes a good effort of meeting Pro's challenge, but only two of her examples carry any weight for me. The other examples were just rich, famous men with sub-par looks, which does not adequately debunk Pro's conception of SMV, which is more dynamic than just physical attractiveness.
The two important examples were Adriana Lima and Never Give Up's (henceforth known as NGU) wife.
For Lima, she fell in love with a man who was high status, being tall, athletic, and famous. However, she stated that she loved him because of his sense of humour and intelligence. Admittedly, it does seem like Lima prefers famous men, but I am not convinced by Pro that it is the only thing she considers. Pro does challenge the sincerity of Lima's statements regarding Jaric, but I don't really see why I should believe she was insincere when Jaric is poorer and (probably) less attractive than Lima. If she only cared about SMV, why would she date a man who seems to be less attractive and wealthy than she is? This really does undermine Pro's claim that Lima was insincere in her interview, which was already a baseless claim to begin with.
NGU was Con's best example. NGU is a self proclaimed ugly guy, but he still found love. NGU's wife only seemed to find him "kinda" attractive, which indicates that some other characteristic (presumably his personality) made him appealing. Pro rightfully points out that the invocation of the word "kinda" indicates that NGU's wife does value attractiveness, but that does not fulfill his burden of proof. Ultimately, I am left with the impression that NGU's wife fell in love with NGU primarily due to his personality. Pro tries to claim that NGU's wife is a narcissist, but he never justifies this assertion. Further, if she fell in love with NGU because he was easy to manipulate, I fail to see how this fits into Pro's SMV paradigm.
Basically, most of Con's examples of women who fell in love with men due to reasons other than SMV fell short, but the two she elaborated upon were great! Con adequately proved that Lima cared a lot about characteristics other than SMV, even if her love of Jaric may have been informed by his height and fame. Further, I also believe that Con proved NGU's wife fell in love with NGU because of NGU's personality. Did NGU's wife consider NGU's SMV? Maybe, but the fact that she considered factors other than SMV fulfills Con's burden of proof.
Pro really bit off more than he could chew with this resolution. He had a really tough case and Con made him pay for it.
SOURCES
Sourcing was bad on both sides, though Con did better. The disparity is not great enough to justify assigning the point.
Well, that didnt go how I wanted to. I will admit I was quite childish towards the end.
It was 12 AM and I was rushing to finish my argument.
Hopefully I will improve my conduct next time.
Then I lose the debate because the proposition is a false dichotomy. No intellectually honest person thinks that though. It takes a great deal of cognitive dissonance and/or dishonesty to blame incel's personalities for why they can't get a gf when you know that there are tons of toxic men who have girlfriends.
But what if your SMV is who you are as a person?
SMV is important but to think it is the only consideration of every single woman alive, is silly