Instigator / Con
8
1500
rating
2
debates
25.0%
won
Topic
#5912
Can Opposite-sex platonic friendships exist?
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
14
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Con
#1
For this debate I really have to show off.
While men and women can certainly be friendly and maintain social relationships, a truly platonic friendship—one devoid of any underlying romantic or sexual tension—rarely exists, or at the very least, is difficult to sustain over time. Here’s why:
1. Biological and Psychological Factors
- Evolutionary Psychology suggests that men and women are hardwired to view each other as potential mates. Even if the friendship starts as platonic, there is always a possibility that one or both parties will develop romantic or sexual attraction over time.
- Studies indicate that men, in particular, are more likely to misinterpret friendly interactions from women as signs of romantic interest, which can complicate the friendship dynamic.
2. Unbalanced Attraction
- In many cases, one person in the friendship has, had, or will have feelings for the other. This often leads to unspoken tension, where one friend may be hoping for something more while the other is oblivious or uninterested.
- Even if neither friend initially feels attraction, spending time together can foster emotional intimacy, which can lead to deeper feelings over time.
3. Social and Romantic Complications
- Opposite-sex friendships often become strained when one or both friends enter romantic relationships. A boyfriend or girlfriend may feel uncomfortable with their partner being close to someone of the opposite sex, even if there’s no explicit romantic history.
- Many people set boundaries in relationships that discourage opposite-sex friendships due to potential threats of emotional or physical infidelity.
4. Emotional Intimacy vs. Romantic Connection
- Friendships often involve deep emotional bonds. The problem is that the type of emotional support offered in close friendships can resemble the connection found in romantic relationships.
- When people share vulnerabilities, personal struggles, and major life experiences, the line between friendship and romance can blur. If this happens, maintaining a purely platonic dynamic becomes challenging.
5. Evidence from Real Life
- Many “platonic” friendships have resulted in one person confessing feelings, changing the nature of the friendship permanently. Even if the feelings are not mutual, the dynamic shifts, and it’s difficult to go back to a pure friendship.
- Breakups and divorce often lead to rekindling of past opposite-sex friendships, showing that the "friendship" may have always contained some dormant romantic interest.
Pro
#2
Hello,
I find this particular topic intriguing. In most scenarios, I would likely align with my opponent's camp. However, exploring the opposite perspective can only sharpen one’s understanding and illuminate truth.
Having said that, let us define our terms. The Merriam-Webstergives a clear definition for platonic being, “of, relating to, or being arelationship marked by the absence of romance or sex.” The word is derived froman idea first described by Plato alluding to “Plato’s belief that love betweenpeople could be so strong as to transcend physical attachments.” It appears my opponent defines platonic friendship as entirely devoid of romantic feelings or tension.
Friendship, a more nuanced term, must also be defined. Because the word carries different meanings to different people, a cleardefinition of this is extremely vital to this conversation. Britannica, I wouldsubmit provides a well-suited definition for this context. It definesfriendship as, “a state of enduring affection, esteem, intimacy, and trustbetween two people.” If my opponent would agree, in regard to platonic friendship,I will be referring to the state in which two people hold affection for oneanother merely as acquaintances absent of romance and sex.
Opening Statement
Primarily, the topic up for debate is a question with abinary choice. It asks, “Can Opposite-sex platonic friendships exist?” Thisbegs for one of two answers, both of which it seems my opponent has failed toanswer. This debate is not about if platonic relationships are easy to come by,or if they will remain static over a sustained period of time. Those points Iwill willingly concede, for they are not the points of primacy. Relationshipsin and of themselves are difficult, and Lord knows friendships often dissolve intoserious relationships. My opponent hasshifted the focus of the debate, and committed a red herring fallacy. Thequestion is not whether platonic friendships are rare or difficult to sustain;it is whether they can exist at all. By focusing on rarity and maintenance,they have avoided addressing the core issue: the possibility of platonicfriendships.
Secondly, regarding the topic of discussion of the possibilityof the existence of platonic relationships between members of the oppositesexes, it seems as if my opponent, in their opening statement conceded thevery point of debate. I quote them saying, “While men and women can certainlybe friendly and maintain social relationships, a truly platonic friendship—one devoid of any underlying romantic orsexual tension—rarely exists, or atthe very least, is difficult to sustain over time.” The key word in thatstatement is rarely. The choice ofwording, though subtly, provides just enough leeway to assume, even though itis uncommon, that platonic relationships between men and women do indeed exist.
However, to remain focused on the point at hand, here iswhat I would stand by as my belief on the subject matter. Keep in mind, it canbe inferred from the phrasing of the debate topic that a mere single instanceof a genuine platonic friendship would suffice to affirm the resolution. Though relationships cantend towards becoming intimate, to the point of deep physical and emotional bonding,platonic relationships between men and women do indeed occur, and occurstrikingly common rates. Here are the reasons for my statement.
Argumentation
- Due to Religious beliefs, societal standards,and cultural values, platonic relationships between men and women can and do exist.
- Evolutionary tendencies are not deterministic.Cultural, moral, and personal values play significant roles in shaping humanbehavior, and many individuals can override base instincts. A devoted Christianhusband or pastor is more likely to have platonic relations, even intimateones, with the young women of his church compared to an unmarried college fratboy and the girls on his campus.
- I would submit that lifestyle is a major devicewhich determines one’s ability for platonic relationships. However, as thetopic asks these relationships can nonetheless be commonly found
2. Men and women are perfectly capable of being swellfriends without any physical attraction.
- Friendship and romantic love, thoughintertwined, are distinct, and one can value the other person’s friendship overpursuing romance.
- Even if we accept my opponent's premise thatplatonic friendships are difficult to sustain due to factors like unbalancedattraction or social complications, this does not negate their existence.Challenges do not equate to impossibility. Many aspects of human relationshipsare complex, yet they persist.
- There are countless examples of men and womenmaintaining close, non-romantic friendships. Consider siblings-in-law orcolleagues who work closely together for years without developing romanticfeelings. These examples demonstrate that platonic relationships can and doexist.
3. Just because friendships can often become romantic,does NOT mean that platonic relationships cannot exist.
- What is rare or demanding does not cease to exist—it simply demands more effort to sustain.
- For a relationship to become romantic, it musthave first been platonic at one point. Not in every scenario does one partyhave romantic intentions from the get-go. Relationships often start off platonicand end in more romantic intimacy.
- Even then, the married man will have manyplatonic relationships with women of the opposite sex because he has by sayingyes to one woman, decided to say no to every other woman in his life.
Concluding Statements
I would submit that platonic relationships are perfectlyreasonable, are much more common than one may believe them to be and can be genuineaffectionate friendships with all the ups and downs that come with them. Infocusing on rarity and difficulty, I believe that my opponent has not addressedthe possibility of platonic friendships. By failing to argue that they areinherently impossible, they have conceded the debate’s central question. Where my opponent sees fragility, I see fortitude; where they see improbability, I see inevitability. Platonic friendships, however rare, are undeniable proof of human depth and restraint.
This debate is not about ease or prevalence but about possibility—and on that point, the answer is clear: Yes, platonic friendships between men and women can and do exist.
Round 2
Con
#3
Rebuttal to Your Arguments
1. The Fallacy of Possibility vs. Practicality
You argue that even a single instance of a truly platonic opposite-sex friendship proves their existence and, therefore, wins the debate. While I understand the logic, this approach shifts the burden of proof unfairly. If we are debating whether something "can exist," then nearly anything becomes possible under extreme circumstances. However, the real question isn’t about mere possibility, but whether these friendships can exist in a pure, sustained, and meaningful way without the interference of attraction, tension, or unspoken romantic interest.
For example, I could argue that a person could theoretically survive without drinking water by receiving fluids intravenously. Technically possible? Yes. A practical or common reality? Absolutely not. The rarity of the phenomenon makes it more of an exception to the rule rather than proof of a norm.
2. Religious and Cultural Factors Do Not Negate Biology
You suggest that religious, societal, and cultural values can override biological impulses, allowing for platonic friendships. While it’s true that values shape behavior, they do not eliminate inherent attraction or emotional complexities. Many religious leaders have fallen victim to the very thing they preach against—proving that even strong moral codes do not fully suppress natural inclinations.
Additionally, the existence of rules and boundaries around opposite-sex interactions in many cultures suggests that societies recognize the difficulty in maintaining purely platonic relationships. If such friendships were truly natural and effortless, there wouldn’t be such strong social or religious guidelines emphasizing caution.
3. Men and Women CAN Be Friendly Without Attraction—But Not DEEP, Platonic Friends
You argue that men and women can be "swell friends" without attraction. Sure, surface-level friendships exist—co-workers, classmates, and family friends interact all the time. But a deep, emotionally invested, long-term friendship? That’s where problems arise.
Even if both parties consciously suppress attraction, subconscious cues (body language, oxytocin release from emotional bonding, admiration) may blur the lines over time. More often than not, these friendships come with at least a moment of temptation or reevaluation, where one person wonders if they could be something more. Even if this moment passes, it still introduces an imperfection into the platonic ideal.
4. The Existence of Platonic Relationships at One Point in Time Doesn’t Prove They Are Sustainable
You claim that because romantic relationships often start as platonic, this proves that true platonic friendships exist. However, this actually supports my point—many friendships naturally progress toward romance, meaning the initial platonic phase is often a temporary stage rather than a permanent state.
Consider this: If something consistently transforms into something else, is its original form sustainable? A caterpillar becomes a butterfly, but if no caterpillar ever remains a caterpillar, is it truly "just a caterpillar" forever? The fact that many opposite-sex friendships transition into something more over time suggests that true platonic friendships are not inherently stable.
5. The Argument from Selective Examples
You mention examples like siblings-in-law or work colleagues who maintain platonic relationships. However, these are special circumstances often defined by external boundaries (family ties, professional constraints). In many of these cases, the relationship must remain platonic due to social consequences rather than genuine lack of attraction.
Additionally, many people hide their attraction in these relationships because it’s inappropriate to act on them. The existence of married individuals who have opposite-sex friends does not prove the absence of attraction—only that it is being managed or ignored.
Final Counterargument
While you make a strong case that platonic friendships can exist in a technical sense, the reality is that they are fragile, often temporary, and susceptible to emotional interference. Even if they start out as purely platonic, there are too many factors—biological, psychological, and social—that make it unlikely they will stay that way forever.
Thus, while I respect your points, I maintain that true, long-term opposite-sex platonic friendships, devoid of any romantic tension, are nearly impossible to sustain indefinitely.
1. The Fallacy of Possibility vs. Practicality
You argue that even a single instance of a truly platonic opposite-sex friendship proves their existence and, therefore, wins the debate. While I understand the logic, this approach shifts the burden of proof unfairly. If we are debating whether something "can exist," then nearly anything becomes possible under extreme circumstances. However, the real question isn’t about mere possibility, but whether these friendships can exist in a pure, sustained, and meaningful way without the interference of attraction, tension, or unspoken romantic interest.
For example, I could argue that a person could theoretically survive without drinking water by receiving fluids intravenously. Technically possible? Yes. A practical or common reality? Absolutely not. The rarity of the phenomenon makes it more of an exception to the rule rather than proof of a norm.
2. Religious and Cultural Factors Do Not Negate Biology
You suggest that religious, societal, and cultural values can override biological impulses, allowing for platonic friendships. While it’s true that values shape behavior, they do not eliminate inherent attraction or emotional complexities. Many religious leaders have fallen victim to the very thing they preach against—proving that even strong moral codes do not fully suppress natural inclinations.
Additionally, the existence of rules and boundaries around opposite-sex interactions in many cultures suggests that societies recognize the difficulty in maintaining purely platonic relationships. If such friendships were truly natural and effortless, there wouldn’t be such strong social or religious guidelines emphasizing caution.
3. Men and Women CAN Be Friendly Without Attraction—But Not DEEP, Platonic Friends
You argue that men and women can be "swell friends" without attraction. Sure, surface-level friendships exist—co-workers, classmates, and family friends interact all the time. But a deep, emotionally invested, long-term friendship? That’s where problems arise.
Even if both parties consciously suppress attraction, subconscious cues (body language, oxytocin release from emotional bonding, admiration) may blur the lines over time. More often than not, these friendships come with at least a moment of temptation or reevaluation, where one person wonders if they could be something more. Even if this moment passes, it still introduces an imperfection into the platonic ideal.
4. The Existence of Platonic Relationships at One Point in Time Doesn’t Prove They Are Sustainable
You claim that because romantic relationships often start as platonic, this proves that true platonic friendships exist. However, this actually supports my point—many friendships naturally progress toward romance, meaning the initial platonic phase is often a temporary stage rather than a permanent state.
Consider this: If something consistently transforms into something else, is its original form sustainable? A caterpillar becomes a butterfly, but if no caterpillar ever remains a caterpillar, is it truly "just a caterpillar" forever? The fact that many opposite-sex friendships transition into something more over time suggests that true platonic friendships are not inherently stable.
5. The Argument from Selective Examples
You mention examples like siblings-in-law or work colleagues who maintain platonic relationships. However, these are special circumstances often defined by external boundaries (family ties, professional constraints). In many of these cases, the relationship must remain platonic due to social consequences rather than genuine lack of attraction.
Additionally, many people hide their attraction in these relationships because it’s inappropriate to act on them. The existence of married individuals who have opposite-sex friends does not prove the absence of attraction—only that it is being managed or ignored.
Final Counterargument
While you make a strong case that platonic friendships can exist in a technical sense, the reality is that they are fragile, often temporary, and susceptible to emotional interference. Even if they start out as purely platonic, there are too many factors—biological, psychological, and social—that make it unlikely they will stay that way forever.
Thus, while I respect your points, I maintain that true, long-term opposite-sex platonic friendships, devoid of any romantic tension, are nearly impossible to sustain indefinitely.
Pro
#4
Thank you for the response,
Rebuttal and Apologia
I would like to point out that during the course of this debate; my opponent has shifted their definition and claim, creating a moving target that undermines the fairness and clarity of the discussion. Initially, their claim was that "a truly platonic friendship—one devoid of any underlying romantic or sexual tension—rarely exists, or at the very least, is difficult to sustain over time." This acknowledges the possibility of platonic relationships, even if rare or challenging. However, in their rebuttal, they reframed the debate to argue that "true, long-term opposite-sex platonic friendships, devoid of any romantic tension, are nearly impossible to sustain indefinitely." This new standard introduces additional criteria, such as “long-term” and “indefinitely,” shifting the focus from whether platonic relationships can exist to whether they can meet an idealized, permanent standard. This redefinition contradicts their earlier acknowledgment of possibility and unfairly places the burden of proof on me to defend an extreme case that was never part of the original debate. The question is not whether platonic friendships are perfectly pure, lifelong, or common but whether they*can* exist at all. The debate began with the premise of whether platonic friendships can exist between men and women, not whether these friendships meet a subjective standard of purity, sustainability, or meaning. If the new definition is applied, we’re no longer debating the original topic. By shifting their claim mid-debate, my opponent invalidates their earlier arguments and attempts to sidestep the core issue, which I have already addressed.
1. The debate isn’t about frequency but existence.
- While it’s true that rare phenomena don’t constitute norms, the burden of proof in this debate is to establish possibility, not prevalence. If platonic friendships exist—even as exceptions—they prove the concept. For instance, the intravenous hydration analogy misrepresents the argument: I am not claiming platonic friendships are unusual workarounds but rather that they are naturally occurring under specific circumstances, just as certain people naturally abstain from romantic intentions. However, as to not shift the goal-posts myself, I will submit that platonic friendships, though in the broad sense can be difficult to maintain, particularly for men, they can be and do appear to true platonic friendships.
2. Religious and cultural values do indeed at times negate biology.
- Biology and Revenge:
- From a biological standpoint, the desire for revenge often stems from the brain's amygdala, which processes emotions like anger and fear. Revenge can be a primitive response tied to the survival mechanism—ensuring justice or deterring future threats.
- Neurochemical Basis: Dopamine, often linked to pleasure, is released when someone contemplates or enacts revenge, reinforcing the idea that retribution "feels right" on a primal level.
- Religious Forgiveness Defying Biology:We have all seen those videos of court cases where Christian man stands before the person who murdered let us say his child, offering forgiveness and sometimes even offering a hug, it defies the primal biological urge for revenge. This act is a testament to the transformative power of faith and moral conviction. The teaching to "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39) illustrates how spiritual values can override natural instincts, leading to responses rooted in love, mercy, and divine justice rather than human vengeance.
- Tendency Toward Attraction vs. Self-Control:Biologically, men are wired to seek mates, with attraction often playing a role in opposite-sex interactions. However, this does not mean biology dictates behavior. Humans possess a prefrontal cortex—the part of the brain responsible for decision-making, self-control, and moral reasoning—which allows them to choose virtue over base impulses.
- Deep Love and Exclusive Commitment:A man who deeply loves his wife and refuses to view other women as objects of his pleasure demonstrates that biology is not destiny. This love, grounded in spiritual and emotional depth, excludes all others. Such commitment is an example of how love transcends mere physical or emotional attraction, embodying sacrifice and selflessness. This is in part what Plato was attempting to describe.
3. Platonic Friendships exist not because Biology, but in Spite of Biology
- The Biological Argument of Universal Attraction:The claim that men cannot maintain platonic relationships because of inherent attraction oversimplifies the complexity of human relationships. While biology might suggest that attraction can exist, religious values, personal boundaries, and moral commitments make platonic friendships not only possible but meaningful.
- Pastors and Men of Faith:Suggesting that all men, including pastors, are incapable of platonic relationships insults their integrity and dedication. Many men of faith exemplify the strength to honor boundaries, seeing women not as objects of attraction but as sisters made in the image of God The notion that all men secretly harbor attraction demeans the spiritual and emotional maturity of Christian men striving to live by God’s standards.
4. Just because some friendships become romantic, does not mean all or most relationships do have that tension.
For example, your caterpillar analogy, though interesting, it totally unrelated. This is because all caterpillars, by inherit design, under the circumstances that they get enough nutrients and do not die, will become butterflies. Not every friendship between a male and female, given enough time together, and so long as it does not die, will become romantic.
- My opponent claimed, “Additionally, the existence of rules and boundaries around opposite-sex interactions in many cultures suggests that societies recognize the difficulty in maintaining purely platonic relationships. If such friendships were truly natural and effortless, there wouldn’t be such strong social or religious guidelines emphasizing caution.” I would like to state that I never claimed platonic friendships were effortless. No true friendship is effortless. I would say that even friendships between two members of the same sex are based on sacrifice, mutual respect, and even setting boundaries. Therefore, the existences of the bulwarks in male-female relationship do not provide an argument against my point, but actually validates my claim that men and women can be real and meaningful friendships.
3. A response to: “Men and Women CAN Be Friendly Without Attraction—But Not DEEP, Platonic Friends.”
- To what extent does my opponent two people must be intimate to have a deep friendship? Must a male and female go out together? Must they hang out at the movies? Or perhaps bake cookies together at grandma’s house for Christmas? Must they practically be living on the edge of dating and physical attraction, or can it be more casual? This very much depends on the situation. As I said earlier, a devoted Christian husband or pastor is more likely to have platonic relations, even intimate ones, with the young women of his church compared to an unmarried college frat boy and the girls on his campus.
- Young, single men are driven by Biology to find amate. I t would be easy to assume they would then look for attraction in most if not all of his female friends. However, a married man has said I do, and thus, if he has any respect for the vows he made, his focus and even desires will shift. However, this debate is not about if young, single men can have platonic relationships with women. It is about if men in general can.
4. A response to: “The Existence of Platonic Relationships at One Point in Time Doesn’t Prove They Are Sustainable.”
- We are not debating sustainability; we are debating possibility. Over and over again, my opponent has added criteria which are not part of the original premise. They have presented and placed upon me an unfair burden of proof. I wouldn’t even dare to claim friendships in general are typically pure, sustainable, and intimate, let alone male-female friendships.
Concluding Statement
I appreciate the arguments, and my opponent makes very strong claims, many I would agree with. Even I would concede this debate if the topic was what he has made it to become. However, because they have failed to address the point of discussion, I would say that for a second time, my opponent has conceded the debate. In their closing statement, they said, “While you make a strong case that platonic friendships can exist in a technical sense, the reality is that they are fragile, often temporary, and susceptible to emotional interference. Even if they start out as purely platonic, there are too many factors—biological, psychological, and social—that make it unlikely they will stay that way forever.” By saying they are fragile, my opponent has nonetheless admitted that platonic relationships between men and women do exist. My claim is not that they are indefinite, or susceptible to interference. Every friendship faces these challenges. It would be silly to claim that because of man’s biological tendency towards selfishness, arguments, and dominance that true same sex relationships are almost impossible. In fact, most friendships are not real, and true friendships according to my opponents' requirements. One would be lucky to in their entire life have three real friends in general. Friendships are rare, but they do exist. Similarly, platonic friendships are rare, but they do exist.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
First of all, the resolution of can something exist is way too open ended!
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Resolution
"rarely exists" is an immediate accidental concession.
"may have always contained some dormant romantic interest" feels like it is failing the falsifiability standard.
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Pro basically opening with a definition to make the debate not so open ended, was a wise move.
Pro catching that the resolution calls for existence rather than difficulty of them staying platonic, is one I don't foresee con recovering from. Con does seem to push back catching the word "can" in pro's statements, which without the later everyday examples would be quite problematic.
"A devoted Christianhusband or pastor is more likely to have platonic relations, even intimateones, with the young women of his church compared to an unmarried college fratboy and the girls on" this was well played, showing these things exist on a spectrum or scale. Con's pushback that religious leaders have failed from time to time, would have hit a lot harder had he not just outlined the difference between exceptions and the norm.
At the end it felt like con was trying to move the goalposts with talk about how even if they exist they aren't true scotsmen... When you need to grasp at those straws, it implies a case which has already been lost (or at the very least severe weakness)
...
This pretty solidly goes to pro. I don't like that he tried to lean on any existence, but at the same time he well exceeded the occasional exception con spoke against with examples I've seen very often in my life.
...
McMieky, there's a good chunk of advice above on setups. Your R2 shows a lot of depth, but the setup ruined you. You may wish to draft an outline for R1 before posting future debates, and then modify the resolution to adhere to what your arguments will be.
Redeemed, for some reason the text editor here has problems when copy/pasting from Word. If you copy paste it into something else like Google Docs, then copy/paste again, your text won't have those missing characters.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
The resolution states that opposite-sex platonic friendships cannot exist, but by Con's second line it's clear he's arguing for rarity, not nonexistence. Since both debaters don't agree to change the resolution to something else, and since Pro emphasizes exceptions, I vote Pro. This debate was a bit like if Con was a monotheist trying to defend atheism by saying that there's only one god, so it doesn't count. Those are two different positions. In addition to the resolution just being too bold of a claim, I wasn't convinced that Con's examples were more common. Neither side cited any sources, so what makes Pro's examples more rare than Con's examples?
I did, thanks
Did you receive the message I sent you?
Oh yes, I have played before. I coach sports camps over the summer, and the number of times I had to play this with the kids is innumerable. I would be happy to join.
Awesome! I take it you're in, then? Have you ever played before? If not, please be sure to read the guide to forum mafia first.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/21-guide-to-forum-mafia
Thank you, and sure I'd be interested in Mafia
Yes, I will cast another vote on this one.
Did you see the forum post I tagged you in? Are you interested in Mafia at all?
Will you be casting another vote? I understand what you mean by one can almost tell when something is ai generated. Truely however, one cannot know for sure.
I've deleted Casey's vote per their request.
Fair enough I suppose. I'll redo my vote.
I used ai to help me with my info and format for my work, not to the extent that I just copy and pasted it, I used multiple different ai's to find my information but most of the idea's I used in the debate where from me. I give the ai's my ideas and they tell me how to work off from it but thats only sometime.
I haven't used them much before, but everything about Con's R1 struck me as being very GPT-esque. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but AI writing has a certain style that's generally pretty easy to identify. I used the detectors as evidence for my claim and to ensure that I wasn't just jumping to conclusions.
To what extent did you use AI, exactly? I may rescind my vote.
Random question, but how accurate have you found those ai detectors to be? I only ask because I have found in the past that many ai detectors have left fully ai statements unmarked, and full human statements marked as ai generated. I also would like to know for future reference because I have had several friends of mine given failing grades as a result of ai detectors giving false results.
I used ai to help me with my work but i type all of that out myself most of the ideas came from me.
AI Detectors:
https://quillbot.com/ai-content-detector
https://gptzero.me/
https://copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector
That second line… oh well, I’ll give this a full read later.
That is a good question. The scenario you mentioned would certainly be one of many examples in which the friendship would indeed appear to be platonic. Considering this, however, the very spirit of the debate requires a male and female who are at the very least, able to be attracted to one another.
What if female and male are both gay?