Instigator / Pro
21
1504
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#644
Women Love Men Who are Generally Attractive more than Specifically Attractive
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
Human
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 8,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
16
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Description
Resolution:
Women are more attracted to men who have adopted a holistic dating strategy than men who are excellent at one specific thing.
Rules:
(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.
(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate
(3) Structure the debate in a readable, Coherent fashion.
(4) No semantics, Trolling, or lawyering. Keep the focus on argumentation not tricks.
Rounds:
(1) Acceptance
(2) Main Argument
(3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument. No new arguments.
(4) Evaluation of main arguments and rebuttals + voting issues (one paragraph). No new arguments.
Definitions:
Holistic - focused on the sum total of the person; including physical, Mental, Emotional and other characteristics of the individual and his life
Burden of Proof:
I have the burden of proof.
By accepting this debate you accept the Rules, Rounds, Definitions, And BOP.
Round 1
Resolution:
Women are more attracted to men who have adopted a holistic dating strategy than men who are excellent at one specific thing.
Rules:
(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.
(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate
(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent way.
(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. Keep the focus on solid argumentation not on tricks or technicalities.
Rounds:
(1) Acceptance
(2) Main Arguments
(3) Rebuttal to opponent's main arguments. No new arguments.
(4) Evaluation of main arguments and rebuttals + voting issues (one paragraph). No new arguments.
Definitions:
Holistic - focused on the sum total of the person; including physical, Mental, Emotional and other characteristics of the individual and his life
Burden of Proof:
Shared burden of proof.
By accepting this debate you accept the Rules, Rounds, Definitions, And BOP.
The nature of your claim is ultimately subjective. When you make a statement about what woman prefer , you invoke a lot of different woman with a lot of different opinions.
If I am to be generous with the title, I could go as far as the to say that proving a 51% majority of woman would be sufficient. However, there problems.
1. You're not a mind reader.
This is actually the key issue. You can't know what every woman wants. If you can't know what every woman wants, Then there is no way to extrapolate any kind of true data. We would just end up with subjective guesses about subjective feelings that we have no real data on.
2. Tracking approaches.
The mind reader problem applies here was well. We can't read the mind of all men and know what dating approach they're using. furthermore, the topic is not a true dichotomy because it does not include cases of hybrids who use two or three approaches, but no holistic ones. That means there are multiple categories that you need to debunk that puts the burden of proof on your, because I don't have to claim a single approach. I only have to prove that your way doesn't enjoy a majority or other approaches.
3. People don't always know.
Woman don't always know what they like until they get it. In fact, many woman simply fall for guys just on looks and then just tolerate their personality, so how does your holistic approach apply here? Men also don't always know what approach they're using. They might just be spit balling.
Summary:
There are simply too many variables to track. whenever subjectivity is involved, it's almost always impossible to get good proof.
Your floor.
Round 2
Round 1 was for acceptance. Round 2 is for your main arguments.
Evolutionary Argument
“Choosing a mate is a complex task, and so we do not expect to find simple answers to what women want.” -David Buss, Evolutionary Psychology, 2012
Men provide food, find and create shelter, defend territory, and protect children. They tutor children in sports, hunting, fishing, hierarchy negotiation, friendship, and social influence. They transfer status, aiding offspring in forming social alliances later in life. Women look for behavioral, physical, and material cues from a man to determine if he can meet these criteria. (David Buss, Evolutionary Psychology, 2012).
Women’s evolved mate preference (EMP) is used to select mates who are attractive in general in order to solve several adaptive problems (AP) in survival and in the replication of their genes (Smuts, 1995). The more effectively a man solves each adaptive problem, the more a women will prefer him as a mate:
A mate who is able and willing to invest in a woman and her children (a hardworking man with high social status) yet is unable to protect her or her children (weak, small, timid, and unathletic) would be seen as unattractive, because he does not solve an adaptive problem in a woman’s mating strategy. In plain English: what good is a man providing resources for a woman or her children if he can’t protect them against getting killed by a bear?
Scientific Argument
Why women have sex is complex and multifaceted, containing varying combinations of motivations. We identified 237 distinct sexual motivations that covered an astonishing variety of psychological nuance. (Cindy Meston, David Buss, 2009)
In the book Why Women Have Sex by sexual psychophysiologist Cindy Meston and evolutionary psychologist David Buss, they mention many attraction triggers in women backed up by over 1000 scientific studies.
Women’s Sexual Attraction and Romantic Attraction for Men is Comprised of Many Factors:
Smell: A man’s smell is a sign of his immune functioning from his MHC gene. The more different the MHC gene, the more a woman’s sexual responsiveness to her partner increased. (Santos, 2005) Women are a lot more sensitive to bad odors than men [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693767/]
Repeated Contact (up to a point): Women are more attracted to a man as exposures increase. (Moreland, Beach, Exposure effect in the classroom, 1992)
Height: associated with higher social status, more physical protection, and health. (Sexual Strategies Theory, Buss, 1993)
Muscularity: Women desire strong, muscular, athletic men for long-term mating as well as sexual liaisons. (Sexual Strategies Theory, Buss, 1993)
Deep Voice: Women are more attracted to men with deeper voices both for long-term mating and short-term sexual encounters. (Dominance and Sexual Dimorphism in Human Voice Pitch, Puts, 2006)
Movement: How a man moves, walks, and dances offer cues as to his motor control, social dominance, and status. (Attraction to Masculinity, Provost, 2008)
Sense of Humor: Produces positive emotions in women and can show intelligence trait as well.
Self-Confidence: Makes a woman feel like she can trust a man’s guidance, and also shows strong mental health.
Fame: Fame is exclusive and scarce, but the main things are that it comes packaged with social status and resources. (Buss, 2009)
Pre-Selection: Women found men most attractive when they were surrounded by other women, because women who mate with men who radiate sex appeal to other women are more likely to give birth to sons who do the same, perpetuating a woman’s genes. (Sexy-Sons Hypothesis, Fisher, 1930)
Similarity: women are attracted to men who share similar attitudes and beliefs, because it produces more positive emotions and mutual understanding.
As a bonus, here are some of the main traits from Mate by Tucker Max and evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller:
1. Sense of Humor
Women are not attracted to men who are excellent at one specific thing.
Autistic Savants
Why examples of professional athletes, actors, and musicians fail
Weakness in one or several areas can act as a killswitch for attraction, for example:
“Choosing a mate is a complex task, and so we do not expect to find simple answers to what women want.” -David Buss, Evolutionary Psychology, 2012
- AP1 - Selecting a mate able to invest. EMP - ambitiousness and industriousness, financial prospects, social status, older age; size, strength, and athletic ability
- AP2 - Selecting a mate who is willing to invest. EMP - Dependability and stability, love and commitment cues, positive interactions with children
- AP3 - Selecting a mate who is able to physically protect her and her children. EMP - Size (muscularity and height), bravery, athletic ability.
- AP4 - Selecting a mate who will show good parenting skills. EMP - Dependability, emotional stability, kindness, positive interactions with children
- AP5 - Selecting a mate who is compatible. EMP - similar values, similar ages, similar personalities
- AP6 - Selecting a mate who is healthy. EMP - Physical attractiveness, symmetry, health, masculinity, good immune system
Why women have sex is complex and multifaceted, containing varying combinations of motivations. We identified 237 distinct sexual motivations that covered an astonishing variety of psychological nuance. (Cindy Meston, David Buss, 2009)
Smell: A man’s smell is a sign of his immune functioning from his MHC gene. The more different the MHC gene, the more a woman’s sexual responsiveness to her partner increased. (Santos, 2005) Women are a lot more sensitive to bad odors than men [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693767/]
1. Sense of Humor
2. Intelligence (𝘌𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴)
3. Altruism (𝘋𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘋𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴)
4. Social Status (𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘉𝘦𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘔𝘦𝘯)
5. Mindfulness (𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘈𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘕𝘰𝘯-𝘑𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭)
6. Older Men (~3 𝘠𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘖𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳)
7. Limited Availability
8. Having a Dog
9. Primal Traits (𝘚𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘓𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴, 𝘏𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘔𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘦)
10. Happiness (𝘎𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘔𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘏𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩)
11. Will-Power
12. Muscular, Healthy Body (𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘣𝘧 %)
13. Assertiveness
14. Wealth (𝘙𝘦𝘢𝘥: 𝘈𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘍𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘖𝘧𝘧𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨)
15. Leadership
- Autistic Savants are people who have significant mental disabilities but demonstrate an extraordinary, specific ability: e.g. rapid calculation, artistic ability, map making, or musical ability. Usually just one special skill is present.
- Are they attractive to women? No. Many autistic characteristics go against typical dating norms, running counter to mainstream conceptions of how to express affection and love. People with autism are rarely considered in romantic contexts.
- Basic, non-sexual touching is uncomfortable. Big smiles can be frightening and eye contact that darts back and forth often makes other people uncomfortable. Autistic people don't understand flirting and it seems complex and nonsensical. They have difficulty in processing social cues from others as well.
- Yes, these are examples of men who have an extraordinary ability in one field and yes, they are attractive to women, but notice how they are also attractive in general. At a high level these people all have high industriousness, social acuity in making deals to improve their careers, and usually sought after by women creating more competition for them.
- Athlete: good physical fitness and health, strength for protecting her and offspring, industriousness and financial prospects for providing resources, higher testosterone produces a lower voice which is more sexually arousing, good body. He fulfills many if not all EMP’s of women.
- Actor: Excellent grooming, hygiene, appearance, facial symmetry. High social status and ability to socialize and empathize. Wealth, lifestyle of freedom and good emotions. He fulfills many if not all EMP’s of women.
- Musicians: Intelligence, motor skills for playing instruments, fame (social status), wealth, pre-selection being surrounded by women, often good looking and physically fit. He fulfills many if not all EMP’s of women.
- These people who are excellent at one thing are also generally attractive as well and set up their lives to maximize the women in them.
Bad smell: How a man smells is critical. A man’s bad breath or bad body odor can be a killswitch for sexual attraction in women. (Buss, Meston, 2009)
Anger Issues: If a man is generally attractive, but extremely horrible with his temper, women's self-preservation kicks in as she becomes unattracted
I did things out of order by accident. So this will count as my acceptance round.
Round 3
Rebuttal Round
The nature of your claim is ultimately subjective. When you make a statement about what woman prefer , you invoke a lot of different woman with a lot of different opinions.
- I may make a statement (assertion) about what women prefer, but it is substantiated by the best scientific evidence and evolutionary models that exist. As seen in my argument, I make reference to many studies, several evolutionary models, book reviews of 1000's of studies, and quotes from the most reputable evolutionary psychologists on the planet [note that is not a fallacious argument from authority, because the evolutionary psychologists are in consensus with these points and this is their area of expertise].
- In studies that poll women's opinions and experiences, they are valid scientific polls published in reputable scientific journals. A valid opinion poll requires a random sample of population, a statistically significant number for the sample size, and non-bias questioning so that the answer of the question is truthful and valid. For certain types of scientific questions where techniques and instruments are not currently able to detect things significantly, scientifically valid polls are some of the best evidence we have.
- For many studies on female arousal a technique called "Vaginal photoplethysmography" is used to measure the amount of blood in the walls of the vagina with light. So that can go an objective level beyond self-reporting or other forms of observation, which is the most accurate you can get with testing of arousal and attraction.
- As indicated in round 1, we have a shared burden of proof. I must show why women are more attracted to men who are more holistically attractive (in mind, body, personality, and materially) and con must show why women are more attracted to men who are hyperattractive in one specialized area. So any claims as to subjectivity (if that is one of his main points) apply equally to him as well.
However, there problems.
This should be: There are* problems.
1. You're not a mind reader.This is actually the key issue. You can't know what every woman wants. If you can't know what every woman wants, Then there is no way to extrapolate any kind of true data. We would just end up with subjective guesses about subjective feelings that we have no real data on.
Again, my argument is not from my subjective feelings; it is from the aggregation of 1000's of scientific studies on attraction, arousal, dating, sex, and relationships.
For example: the evolutionary model of women's attraction by means of an evolved mate preference (EMP) used to select mates who are attractive in general in order to solve several adaptive problems (AP). This explains that women experience increased attractiveness toward men who solve more of her adaptive problems more effectively.
Many additional studies prove that women are attracted sexually and romantically to over a dozen male traits from how he smells to how assertive he is; also there are varying combinations of factors and motivations for why women experience sexual response and have sex with men.
When evolutionary models, current scientific evidence, and answers to scientific polls all converge on the same point: that women are attracted to men who follow a more holistic dating strategy (attractive in mind, body, personality, and material ways), that's the most accurate and truthful we can get. Evolution predicts it; women say it; and science proves it.
2. Tracking approaches.The mind reader problem applies here was well.
We can't read the mind of all men and know what dating approach they're using.
The "mind reader problem" has been addressed above. Women say what they are attracted to, they are measured with vaginal photoplethysmography to detect what attracts and arouses them, and the evolutionary models predict what they will be attracted to in order to solve adapted problems of survival and reproduction.
Furthermore, the topic is not a true dichotomy because it does not include cases of hybrids who use two or three approaches, but no holistic ones. That means there are multiple categories that you need to debunk that puts the burden of proof on your, because I don't have to claim a single approach. I only have to prove that your way doesn't enjoy a majority or other approaches.
There is no dichotomy, because attraction is on a spectrum and as shown in my argumentation, the more a man fulfills a woman's evolved mating preferences, the more attractive he will be.
3. People don't always know.Woman don't always know what they like until they get it.
Addressed with previous points of vaginal photoplethysmography, thousands of studies testing extremely specific things in human attraction and mating, and the aggregation of scientific poll data from women's responses.
Women*
In fact, many woman simply fall for guys just on looks and then just tolerate their personality, so how does your holistic approach apply here?
There is no warrant for this assertion and no source provided. It seems like con's statement of subjectivity applies more strongly to his own argument than mine. Science and arguments are more accurate and persuasive than con's opinionated assertion.
Taken seriously, I would like to point out that the resolution concerns what is women are more attracted to, not what they will tolerate.
In fact, the very use of the phrase "tolerate their personality" implies that the women would be happier with a man who has good looks and a good personality. This is a clear point for pro.
women*
Men also don't always know what approach they're using. They might just be spit balling.
A man's knowledge and awareness of what strategies he is using to attract a woman is irrelevant to how the women experience them and also irrelevant to the debate, because we are debating what women are attracted to and we are not debating whether or not the men are aware of the concentration of androstenol in their sweat, their social status, or the pitch of their voice.
Summary:There are simply too many variables to track.
There are thousands of extremely specific studies that track the most minute detail of what women are attracted to and control for factors such as where the women are in their menstrual cycle.
- For example, a study that tested the smell of a men's shirts after working out and how attractive women found the men based on their shirt smell. They found that women were more attracted to the men who produced more androstenol which is a chemical associated with higher testosterone in men.
- Or in the voice study, women listened to over a hundred different voices and rated the lower-pitched voices more attractive universally.
Again, this is more of an attack on science in general than on my position. And as con has a shared burden of proof, he most demonstrate why women prefer men who are hyper-attractive in one characteristic (excessive wealth, mathematical ability, etc).
This is a point for pro.
whenever subjectivity is involved, it's almost always impossible to get good proof.
Again, given the fact that thousands of scientific studies have covered these topics in as rigorous detail as possible, the subjectivity argument is patently false.
Summary:
Con said my claims are subjective, but scientific evidence, scientific polling, and evolutionary models are as objective as we can get. Also, this claim would apply equally to him.
Con said women don't know what they're attracted to. This argument fails because vaginal photoplethysmography can measure her arousal, scientific pollinng aggregates female responses, and evolutionary models predict what she will be attracted to. Also, I don't have to defend science in this debate because evidence and science should apply equally to con since we have a shared burden of proof as indicated in round 1.
Okay. I'm going to start off by point out that there is no shared BoP in this debate. You're advocating that woman like a certain type of guy who is "generally attractive" I am not arguing that woman like any particular kind of guy. I'm only here to say that I don't buy your claim. I'm usually fine with shared BoP. But in this case it is not appropriate. I would also like to remind you that you do not decide the burden of proof. The nature of the debate itself does.
With that said, I will, of course, meet the BoP on any claims that I make against you aside from my general skeptical comments.
Rebuttal time.
I'm really itching to address your round 3 statements, but I'll be a good little elephant and do things right and deal with that at rejoinders .
I'm going to save us some time on the evolutionary argument. I agree that our biology does indeed tell us to look for a mate with certain survival skills. No problems here. I will note that nothing here specifically supports your claim that men have to adopt a holistic strategy. It just shows that woman have a very complicated system of choosing men. Which actually hurts your case if you ask me. One thing science can't do is read the mind. At least not yet anyway. The main problem with this whole line of reasoning is that we're trying to quantify data on something that is not quantifiable. Your evidence shows that woman have so many different cues they use, that it would be impossible to pin down what they specifically want. Plus, how do you account for woman wanting different things? If a holistic strategy is the goal, then it would naturally follow that woman like a holistic strategy, but some woman don't. Explanation?
On the scientific argument I disagree. Saying woman have a complex set of reasons is vacuous. Everything that humans do has a complex set of motivations behind it. You're just putting a microscope on the problem and trying to make it look more complicated than it is. Woman have sex to ultimately reproduce. The body makes sex feel good as a reward for reproduction. The judgements that woman make about a man's traits are largely arbitrary and every woman likes different qualities, but ultimately just come down to making a child with good survival traits. Any problem sound profound when you focus on it in the wrong scope.
On the many behaviors thing. It's just not true. Most woman decide if they like a guy within several minutes of meeting him. If what you say is true, this wouldn't be the case because the man would have to present all of these many holistic traits within several minutes, which is impossible. Woman decide if they like you or not. Then they decide how many of your "holistic" traits that they're willing to put up with. Speaking as a married man here.
On a side note. Are you married? Just curious, nothing to do with the debate. You seem to know this holistic strategy pretty well. So if it's so awesome, you must be happily married right? just wondering, because I didn't do holistic anything. My wife decided she liked me based solely off 2 or 3 factors. not hundreds of them like you claim.
I'm not trying to completely discredit you here. I do believe that there are subtle factors at work. But I feel like you're trying to take a Taoist approach and balance it out like it's some perfect system. It's not. Dating is total chaos and anyone who tells you otherwise is mistaken.
I'm not sure why you bring autistic people into this. That seems dishonest to me. Is this your idea of a "specifically attractive person"? I think not. How can you prove that it's not the autistic part keeping the woman away instead of the savant part. The short answer is that you can't. The best way for you to prove your case is to Steelman the argument. You should present the counter of your argument in the best light so that there's no doubt in people's minds when you knock it down. The straw man you just knocked down just make me suspicious as to why you needed a strawman instead of a Steelman. Was the Steelman too hard to knock down?
Like I said before. I'm not here to advocate for a specific dating strategy and I don't claim that a specific system works. I'm here to be the skeptic and say that we can't know what works best because we're not mind readers.
Moving on. When you bring up weaknesses. There is a flaw in your plan. You put "bad smell" and "anger issues" This is another strawman because you're suppose to be arguing that your position is superior to specifically attractive. You're posing it against completely unattractive. Why aren't we talking about people with neutral smells and neutral emotion issues? The answer is because those people are successful and prove that a holistic approach is not needed. I knew a guy in high school that smelled like rotten beef a roni (my words back then) and got more girls than I did. There's not rhyme or reason to it. You're not a mind reader. You're not a guru. You don't have all the answers.
Your floor.
Round 4
Evaluation of main arguments and rebuttals + voting issues (one paragraph). No new arguments.
I'm going to start off by point out that there is no shared BoP in this debate...
The time to disagree with BoP is not the 3rd round of the debate, it's in the first round or before the debate starts. Too late.
The debate resolution says X is better than Y, so I prove that and you prove that Y is better than X. This resolution is conducive to shared BoP.
I will note that nothing here specifically supports your claim that men have to adopt a holistic strategy.
In round two, I laid out the evolutionary argument in which The more effectively a man solves each adaptive problem, the more a women will prefer him as a mate" and I listed the 6 adaptive problems women face for survival and reproduction, as well as the evolved mate preferences for each.
Then, I explained why a holistic strategy is important for men to employ (bear example).
[Questioning Science]
Science is only our closest approximation of the truth, and where certain things are unquantifiable, qualitative responses are analyzed, such as the case of scientific polling. It's not my job to prove science is omniscient.
The judgements that woman make about a man's traits are largely arbitrary
I disproved this in the previous round. Women's desires for a mate are not arbitrary, they have been crafted over millions of years of evolution. The main qualities of male attractiveness that women desire are quite universal and consistent even within different cultures, socioeconomic levels, and age groups.
- For example in the study on wealth's influence on attractiveness, 150 women rated mens attractiveness based on a photo and his salary. "A man can move himself two points higher on the attractiveness scale we used if his salary increases by a factor of 10." [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381730315X]
The evolutionary argument and the scientific argument fit together hand-in-glove, and the research backs this up at every turn. There may be outliers, but in general women tend to prefer ambitious, rich, physically fit, humorous, kind men who have high testosterone, high status, and similar values.
Men don't need to be Jeff Bezos rich or as Arnold Schwarzenegger fit. As long as they solve the adaptive problems women face in mating choices by being generally attractive, that is what women are attracted to.
Most woman decide if they like a guy within several minutes of meeting him.
I don't know of any evidence to suggest this is true. Regardless of the number of minutes to decide whether she "likes a guy" (code for being attracted), it's important to see what she's looking for during that time period. She is analyzing the guy for the cues he shows.
Let's look at a girl meeting guy at a bar for example.
She sees him first.
- Size, height, muscularity, facial symmetry, motor skills while walking.
He approaches her and talks to her
- Bravery in approach, social status, humor, intelligence, social skills, dominance, assertiveness, comfortability in sexuality, empathy, self-confidence, deep voice.
He leads her to the bar.
- Leadership
He buys her a drink.
- Material proof of having resources, kindness, assertiveness in way of ordering
He kisses her.
- Biochemical sample of his immune system's compatibility with hers.
He leads her home.
- Leadership, resourcefulness dealing with logistics, empathy dealing with her situation with friends/schedule.
They get more intimate.
- Empathy, social skills, level of testosterone
He fucks her.
- Dominance, deep voice, assertiveness, leadership, movement (motor coordination), chemical cues, athleticism 😉
So as you can see, her attraction, comfort, and connection to him increases as a function of time with the variety of situations they go through where she can view and sense the qualities of his attractiveness.
[Men would have to display all traits in 5 minutes]
As shown above, a woman can have a pretty accurate perception of a man's attractiveness in a 60 minute interaction due in part to the variety of situations presented and how the man handles them.
We form perceptions of people quite quickly. If a guy is too timid to get the bartender's attention or too shy to speak with a loud, deep voice to a woman, we form the impression that he is a shy, lower-status male.
Harvard Business School professor Amy Cuddy says we form impressions within 2 seconds.
Woman decide if they like you or not.
No source for this. Women's attractiveness is like a volume knob, increasing over time as more attractive cues are acquired form observing the man: how he behaves, how people respond to him, and how she interacts with him.
Are you married? My wife decided she liked me b/c of 3 factors.
I've had a girlfriend for 6 months and I'm not sure my thoughts on marriage. I'm also a pretty respected dating coach for men, so I have a professional as well as personal interest in this stuff.
And also, like in the studies I've mentioned there could be a lot of things she is not consciously aware of but increases her attraction to you.
I'm not sure why you bring autistic people into this. Is this your idea of a "specifically attractive person"?
Good question. I bring the autistic savants into this debate to demonstrate that a person who is extremely attractive in one category like intelligence but severely lacking in other areas such as social skills, social status, or humor are not attractive to women and have difficulties dating.
It's not the only example of a "specifically attractive person."
Another example could be the industrious rich older man who has amassed a fortune, and while women may date or even fuck him, they are repulsed by him and essentially use him as a human credit card.
When you bring up weaknesses. You put "bad smell" and "anger issues" This is another strawman because You're posing [your argument] against completely unattractive.
No, a person could be attractive in several ways but ALSO smell like crap. That lack of attractiveness in that area massively outweighs others.
Why aren't we talking about people with neutral smells and neutral emotion issues?
People with neutral smell and not bad emotional issues can still be generally attractive when combined with other traits and behaviors that I've listed.
I knew a guy in high school that smelled like rotten beef a roni (my words back then) and got more girls than I did.
While this anecdote is hilarious, it should not be valued higher than science. We avoid those who smell "bad" which in some cases is an inbreeding avoidance mechanism that prevents harmful genetic consequences. Also, the fertility and health of someone in general can be determined through some sniffy sniffs.
📮VOTING ISSUES
Arguments - I have explained the evolutionary argument for why women are attracted to many traits of a man and why he needs to meet her six adapative problems of survival and reproduction. I have explained the scientific argument for what women are attracted to. Con made no arguments for his side of the resolution (women are attracted to men who are excellent at one specific thing), and instead just used every round as a rebuttal round. I met my BoP. Vote pro for arguments.
Sources - I actually used sources, named studies, and posted links. Con has used no sources except for his own anecdotes and thoughts. Vote pro for sources.
Spelling and Grammar - Con doesn't seem to care much about the conventions of spelling and grammar. I've pointed out many mistakes during the debate. Vote Pro for better spelling and grammar.
Conduct - I as pro abided by the rules, definitions, and burden of proof of the debate. Con posted argument in round one, which was the acceptance round. In round three denied the burden of proof that is implicitly accepted in round one. Vote pro for better conduct.
Burden of Proof isn't established by me posting it at a certain time. It's established by the nature of the arguments posed in the debate. Every claim bears it's own individual BoP. So it doesn't matter if I point out something that was already true. You're just trying to sneak in a fake burden by setting an arbitrary rule that I can't state what the BoP is after the first round. If your argument was strong enough to pass the burden, you wouldn't have to do this.
Yes, your statement is X is better Y. My argument is there is no better strategy. The strategy depends on the woman. That's a valid proof. Your argument implies that I'm a player and I just want to pick up as many women as possible. What if I want one specific woman as a wife and she only wants specific things out of me? I showed a case where Y is better than X. Your argument is restrictive and makes too many assumptions.
Your evolution argument only proved that woman like certain characteristics. It does not prove that your strategy is ubiquitous in application.
I'm not questioning science. I'm questioning your pseudo science. Science supports my claim that different woman = different strategy. You also fail to overlook the fact that those holistic qualities can work against you. What if the woman likes some of your qualities but the other ones turn her off? Now your system is working against itself. You could hide those qualities if you want to be a dirty liar I guess, but the thing about lying is that it gets harder over time and after enough lies your house of cards will fall and then every girl in the neighborhood will know your a player and avoid you like the plague. Then what?
You're just saying they're not arbitrary. They really are. A woman could fall in love with me because I said something really cool onetime and then everything after that was just chemistry. It doesn't really matter why they're initially attracted to you. Once they're with you all that goes out the window and they stay with you because you share certain beliefs or lifestyles, etc. None of that has anything to do with a holistic "strategy" People cling to people who are like them or make up for what they lack, etc. They're puzzle pieces, not magnets.
No evidence huh? I guess you've never been to a bar and seen a woman instantly start walking towards a man to fawn for him. There is no strategy to chemistry. The man was just the right puzzle piece. I actually read a pick up book once when I was younger. They had this account of a real woman met a guy in the bar who told this chick a cheesy joke while she wasn't looking at him, she was about to raise her head to shoo him away and then she looked at his face and instantly fell for the guy and married him. Later on when she had a picture of her dad, she realized that her dad's eyes were spread out on his face, just like her husbands and that was likely the reason she fell for him. Because he had a comforting familiarity. What does any of that have to do with strategy?
That's just false. All of the qualities you showed are strictly superficial and would easily breakdown if the woman stayed with you long term. If you want to be a player, then cool, but like my example for before showed, it will ultimately backfire on you.
Oh, you're a dating coach. Well I guess you have a bias towards this topic then right? Because your profession necessarily requires you to have a strategy. What about all of the people who don't need your help? Why are they doing so well without a strategy? I think a dating coach is just a shortcut. Not saying it isn't useful. If you get the guy paired up with the right woman, then things could work out for them, but you do realize that you're really just he ice breaker in the equation right?
Are you making the assumption that an autistic person can't get woman? Because that's not true. I've known at least two that are total chick bait. Savants get laid too and tend to get married. Savant isn't really a formal term anyway. It's subjective. Some people would call Bobby Fischer a savant, but he was still good at other things. It just seemed like he was only good at chess because he was so darn good at it.
Oh no. You're not dodging this one. You said holistic dating strategy. If you can take pieces out and it still works, then it's not holistic. By your strategy, a person with a neutral smell would be worse and that's not the case. Plenty of people with neutral smells do just fine. This is a hole in your strategy.
You mean pseudo science. What makes a smell bad? Our opinion. While I thought he smelled like beef a roni, the chicks apparently liked beef a roni. So you can cite "science" all you want. But science doesn't make absolute claims the way you are.
Appealing to the voters. hmmm. Yeah I guess I would do that too if I had weak arguments. Here I'll help you out. Vote PRO!!! His beliefs won't be true otherwise.
I don't care about winning, I care about truth. Winning is nice though because it means I did a good job convincing people, so winning makes me happy for that reason in addition to the normal motivations for winning things.
I know I was harsh, but that's my style.
Good debate to my well conducted opponent.
(4) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
(3) The Spelling and Grammar point is not sufficient. In order to award spelling and grammar (S&G) points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible.
(1) The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
(2) The source point is not sufficient. In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Speedrace // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 2 points to pro for sources and 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: This was very interesting. Pro obviously gets sources. However, Con easily gets conduct. Pro specifically stated in the description that HE had the burden of proof, but then tries to shift it to being shared. That's dishonest debating. He also cusses twice in his rounds, and he inappropriately tries to correct Con's grammar (even though his isn't much better). Con was a little disrespectful in his last round, but Pro was much more so. As to the arguments, Pro definitely had good points and backed them up, but I feel that he didn't respond to Con's arguments very much. I would have given it to Con if he had used sources, but he ended up not doing so.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Alanwang123 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to pro
RFD: It just feels like the right thing to do.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
I'm very surprised that Pro thought he should get the conduct point.
I suggest correcting your own grammar before you correct your opponent's.
You might want to expand on your reasons for the voting decision a little bit
Cheers for the feedback, I'll be more specific when voting sources the next time.
Conduct: Pro (Con goes off-topic by passive-aggressively asking Con whether he is “happily married”, regularly asks rhetorical questions “right?”, “No evidence huh?”, “You mean Pseudoscience “ and is confrontational in general “Oh no. You're not dodging this one.”, “Oh, you're a dating coach. Well I guess you have a bias towards this topic then right?”, “Appealing to the voters. hmmm. Yeah I guess I would do that too if I had weak arguments.”. Finally he acknowledges his “harsh” debating style and Pro’s good conduct: “I know I was harsh, but that's my style. Good debate to my well conducted opponent.”)
I wrote more thorough reasons for my voting decision but since Con's rebuttal and final round were thoroughly disappointing, I don't feel like I've got anything good to say about them, loved Pro's opening round though. Feel free to ask about any further justification of points awarded. It is beyond my comprehension how the other voters awarded the points while neglecting Con's consistently toxic tone, incoherent arguments, abundance of unnecessary rhetorical questions to dismiss arguments rather than elaborating why he believes them to be flawed and ad hominem attacks rather than focus on the debate [alluding to Pro's job and marriage].
Arguments: Pro (Pro’s Evolutionary Model and Scientific Data model are both successful [supported by evidence such as citations and studies and provided with sufficient examples such as bad hygiene negatively affecting sexual market value and autistic savants being considered generally unattractive] and logically coherent [The conclusions follow from the premises] while Con’s first and second argument are contradicted by the scientific data cited in Pro’s second argument [i.e. Pro showed that there are methods of reliably determining mate preferences such as using "Vaginal photoplethysmography"] and his third argument is a non-sequitur which is later pointed out by Pro “A man's knowledge and awareness of what strategies he is using to attract a woman is irrelevant to how the women experience them and also irrelevant to the debate, because we are debating what women are attracted to and we are not debating whether or not the men are aware of the concentration of androstenol in their sweat, their social status, or the pitch of their voice.”)
Sources: Pro (Human cited scientific literature and academic books, Ralph neglected to cite a single source even after Pro pointed this out in round 3).
S&G: Pro (Human structured his text neatly, remained on topic and made no significant S&G errors, Ralph devoted a significant portion of the debate off-topic subjects [such as whether Pro is happily married, his own marriage and at least ten unnecessary rhetorical questions] , his second argument is hard to distinguish from his first [except for the added appeal to a shared BoP] and there were S&G errors that made reading difficult throughout the debate [e.g. “woman” was constantly used instead of “women”, sentence starters are regularly not capitalised which decreases the flow “furthermore”, “whenever”…]
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to pro
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) Sources are not sufficiently explained. In order to award source point, the voter must:
(a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
(b) Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
(c) Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
This vote does not do these three
Everything else seems fine IMO
******************************************************************
Better conduct
Con spent a considerable portion of the debate arguing about the rules and round structure of the debate he agreed to be in. For example round 4 was outlined to include a one paragraph voting issues section; in round 4 pro outlined his voting issues to which Con replied: “Appealing to the voters. hmmm. Yeah I guess I would do that too if I had weak arguments.” Not only is this unnecessarily obnoxious, but it’s just downright confusing. Why is he surprised by this if it is in the round structure? Con was aggressive throughout the debate, making rude comments such as the one above and things like “You mean pseudo science.” Con’s rounds were difficult to read due to the excessive rudeness.
1 point to pro
Arguments, sources, and conduct clearly go to pro. I could understand how other people would tie the spelling and grammar if their criteria is that the debate is still coherent enough to be understood. But for me, Pro’s use of quotations for rebuttals, clearly laid out initial argument, and proper spelling and grammar makes him deserve the point over Con. Feel free to ask me for more input if you want on any of these points.
Better arguments
Pro’s evolutionary argument that women look for traits of a man that solve several of her needs was persuasive and matched up with the current scientific evidence he presented. Instead of Con creating arguments for his position to meet his bop, he spent the entire debate in rebuttal mode even though the debate structure and rounds were clearly outlined in round 1. Pro pointed this out and oddly enough con still did not choose to make any arguments for his side. Con made a couple flailing attempts to undermine science itself, which was easily dismissed by Pro as not the focus of the debate. As another voter pointed out, Con used tons of rhetorical questions instead of making an effort to form an argument.
3 points to pro
Better sources
Pro cited over a dozen sources from studies, websites, and books. Con cited no sources in the debate sense. He used many personal anecdotes like the “rotten beef a roni” friend and his n=1 of his wife’s 2-3 reasons for being with him. 2 points to pro
Better spelling and grammar
Con made too many spelling and grammar errors to enumerate, but the most annoying one was when he frequently misspelled ‘women’ when referring to a single woman. Another example of weird grammar that made the debate harder to read: “Moving on. When you bring up weaknesses. There is a flaw in your plan.” Con’s writing seemed to be from phone dictation rather than typing. Pro laid things out in a readable way, especially when using the quotation feature for rebuttals and I couldn’t find any horrible misspellings or grammar issues. 1 point to Pro
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: ViennaSausage // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded:
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action: This voter is not permitted to vote on this debate
*******************************************************************
Please review the Code of Conduct, while the help Center is mostly correct: the specific rules for allocation according to the voting code of conduct is:
“In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
- Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
- A Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
-Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
-Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.”
The code of conduct elaborates the detail of source allocafion here, and my decision for not awarding them adheres strictly to the code of conduct voting regulations - specifically relating to the first, second and third bullet points.
You can find it here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
It is a bit confusing, but the resources on the main page is a little out of date, the code of conduct takes precidence.
That is incorrect according to the voting guide.
Quality of sources is the most important, which I had and used to substantiated my arguments and the support of my arguments against rebuttals.
When one side has no sources or too few, then quantity is reason for voting as well.
So in this case I won both in quality and quantity, which would warrant me the two points.
Direct quote from the voting guide:
“Sources. Sources should only be awarded because one side had better quality sources. Saying that one side had more sources is never going to be sufficient. If one side had so few sources that it constituted inadequate source support, then you can consider quantity. But normally, you need to show that one side had sources of superior quality.”
https://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/68208/
The link from DART to DDO is in the Resources and Helpful Links section here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346
*Golf Claps*
Sources are not awarded on quantity. If it was sheer volume of sources, or where the sources came from: pro would have won.
Unfortunately, I will not generally award sources when one side merely corroborates claims that are not particularly unreasonable; for me to get sources, you need to make one or more knock out points - that bolster your argument for the resolution which are then corroborated by a source in a way that reduces your opponents ability to argue against it.
I don’t either of those things were true here: if every factual claim you made are true, it wouldnt have proven the resolution, so no validation of that position helped you.
To be frank Mr. Sausage. I did not know there was a voting section outlined. I am not accustomed to seeing that in the outlines so I guess I intuitively overlooked it. My missteak.
lol. Oh dear you really said I typed my argument on a phone.
I don't know whether to take this as an insult to my spelling, or a compliment for being the worlds fastest texter.
Thanks for the vote.
More voters = good.
Lol, tough crowd.
Pro: *cites 15 sources from academic books and studies*
Con: *cites no sources*
Judges: "Yeah, that's a tie on sources"
*Curb Your Enthusiasm track plays*
To say it's universal is to say that every woman on earth has that attraction, so I wouldn't agree.
I would go as far as to say it could be a societal or evolutionary trend. there's too many different flavors to have a universal. Every flavor has a congruent flavor that can proxy for it with other people.
My real problem with the topic argument is that it makes a broad statement without considering situational factors.
I actually admitted in the debate that some of his statements were true, I'm not a monster, lol.
The comment about him being a debating coach might seem like conduct. But I was making a true statement in my opinion and it was relevant.
He was claiming a system was needed, and I rightfully pointed out that a dating coach would have a natural disposition to thinking that a strategy is necessary because they want to be prepared for their job. I also said that his plan COULD work, but not long term and I showed an example of what would happen if someone tried to become a player as their goal and how it would backfire. See. I don't just use rhetoric. I use analogies and examples. I'm just saying all of this because you asked my opinion on the subject and I'm verbose.
Fair play to you.
Just out of interest. Do you not think that women have universal mate preferences?
For example, it is is quite obvious that there are universal taste preferences (people generally prefer sweet & savoury foods over bitter food). In the same way it seems obvious to me that women tend to prefer wealthy, athletic, caring, etc. individuals and that the more of these traits a man posseses (i.e. the more holistic), the better his chances should be.
I have no problems with your vote.
I just found it odd that you reject rhetorical devices as good evidence.
Rhetorical devices not just a tool to lead people down a path. It's also a tool to cover a bunch of possibilities at once without having to waste a whole round interrogating my opponent. I'm doing my opponent a favor with that rhetoric. Because odds are I covered the point that he/she wanted to cover and now they have something to respond to.. That's why I think it's a good tool in any debate setting. Honestly, I'm not sure how adding the "academic" descriptor really does anything. Seems like an arbitrary, vacuous and counterproductive measure. There is no unified standard for logic or debate style. We use the method that works for us.
You might be right that I might not get as many people if I don't stick to the norm. But I'm here for truth first and votes second. I don't care if my arguments are convincing. I care if they're true. That way when somebody does get their mind changed by me, I can rest easy knowing that I changed their mind with the truth and didn't lead them down a path to false enlightenment.
Fair compromise?
Because by repeatedly relying on rhetorical questions you force the readers to come to conclusions. This is a good way of convincing people of a view that they have not considered before hand by forcing them to actively engage with your premises. However, in a formal debate it is your job to elaborate on points made and point to how they contradict your opponent, using rhetorical questions in an academic context is rather lazy and I can not award points for implications that I had to deduce by myself in the same way that I can not award points for arguments that support a certain position but were not made in the actual debate.
It wasn't personal. That's just the mood I use when I talk sometimes.
May I ask what you have against rhetorical devices?
Specifically, rhetorical questions?
They're good enough for philosophers, why not for you?
I'm asking in earnest.
Glad to have read the debate although I was somewhat disappointed by your debating technique. I'd cut back on the rhetorical questions, add some sources and definitely avoid making the debate personal. You could have had a better shot (in my opinion) by citing the literature of evolutionary psychologist Stephen Jay Gould instead of relying on ad lib arguments.
I can't speak to what the voters decided. But I personally tend not to cite sources unless I need hard mathematical data.
In my worldview, I find sources containing rhetoric to be appeals to authority.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against rhetoric.
But if I'm going to hear somebody's opinion, I'd rather hear the opinion of my opponent rather than my opponent giving me somebody else's opinion. I don't care if my opponent's use sources but I generally don't.
I gladly accept the source point deduction if it means I get to argue in the way that I find most truthful.
I'm here to change minds and votes are just a bonus because that means that I did a good job at changing minds.
Once again, I appreciate the vote.
I believe the more voters, the better.
Evolutionary biology and psychology have always been controversial, it has often been pointed out on DART that the easiest way to win a debate is to pick a resolution that most people agree with as you've pretty much got the argument points in your pocket from the start.
Thanks for the vote. Sorry my style doesn't appeal to your pallet. Can't win them all. I suppose I should apply a holistic strategy ;)
I'm perplexed by the fact that you awarded sources to both debaters even though Pro cited mostly peer-reviewed scientific literature, while Con did not cite a single source even after Pro pointed this out and requested a source for Con's assertion in round 3. Could you explain how you determined how to award the sources point in this debate?
I can see counter-arguments for S&G, few for conduct and possibly some for arguments but sources clearly has to go to Pro.
Any coincidence that the actual votes and vote bombs were both for Con? Even though con mentioned no sources, made no arguments for his BoP, and deliberately derailed the debate into very strange areas including trying to weasel out of the BoP in the 3rd round.
I have never been more confused by people's votes in my entire life lol.
I guess that's the problem with these sites. They don't have the resources to get impartial judges, or at least judges who have the time to read through a long debate.
I was thinking about a solution for this: perhaps for each debate, both sides put in something like $2 or more. Part of that goes toward judges and part toward site maintenance.
Thoughts?
Good enough. Thanks!
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules Specifically in this case the argument is sufficient, though the conduct point is not. In order to award conduct point, the voter must:
fine, ill award conduct to both.
The Pro has shown (Mostly through smell) the science of physical attraction to the body and phermones, however the burden of proof to prove attraction would also invoke emotions and other concepts into the fray, his own sources do not cover the entirety of his debate, nor did he prove that those who are autistic have less attraction than those who do not. however con provided no sources either so i am giving that to both. I'm taking away conduct because of the insistence of Pro's burden of proof and appealing to voters.
Pro's point is that through understanding physical attraction we can conclude that specialization in activity is often to the downfall of those who seek to be attracted to.
Con points out the subtility of attraction is often not as varied or as exclusive as Pro concludes
Pro's point is that through the shown methods that there is MORE attraction, however there is no proof given that all these factors conclude to more attraction other than his link regarding odor and how wealth increases attraction.
Con affirms holistic strategy is not conclusive form for appealing to attraction.
In general I agree the burden of proof is not shared in this debate, despite set up and appeal by pro. I would suggest there be more evidence to conclude dating strategy and to investigate emotional attraction by pro.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules Specifically in this case the argument is sufficient, though the conduct point is not. In order to award conduct point, the voter must:
(a) Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
(b) Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
(c) Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: killshot // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to con
RFD: It was over in the first round.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
Cons whole rebuttal round points out the individual and specific complexity of attraction. Con points out that just pointing a list of things that woman find attractive doesn’t mean a woman would someone above average in all more attractive than someone exceptional in one - basically pointing out the situation is too complex to be boiled down.
Summary. I felt pro lost site of the specifics, and was mostly trying to argue that as women are attracted to multiple individual traits that more individuals traits Being good Are better than 1 big one.
The evolution argument was interesting but didn’t pass muster - as pro did not establish more than a theoretical relationship. If there was a caveat in the resolution to this effect, I may have reviewed this differently.
Con - on the other hand sufficiently muddied the water on this point, and detailed the complexity and the lacking justification in order to win. Enough doubt was introduced here to erode the burden of proof even in spite of the lack of overall warrant. At best this could be a tie.
Conduct: so, the BoP was on pro as clearly stated in the agreed description. I can’t accept R1 changes - as I didn’t even notice them Despite reading through multiple times, pro bickered about the BoP not being on him, and argues that I must hit him with a Conduct penalty for arguing pro has burden of proof when pro clearly states this was not the case in the description. I don’t view cons violation egregious - and he made up for it by waiving his round.
At this point I did come close to hitting con with a violation, but I feel the arguments points is sufficient - and It’s hard to judge whether the change was intentional. But it was tough.
All other points tied.
However, what I feel pro fails to do - is just the resolution as he defined, that it’s better to be all round good, than good at one specific thing. Pro doesn’t offer a justification that being a bit better in multiple examples on the list is more important that being much better in others.
Pro gives examples of athletes being exceptional AND above average (so matching both paradigm). But also mentions autistic savants, who are exceptional and below average (so failing to be relevant as per what I need to award a win.)
Cons rebuttal, is threefold that there are too many variables to track - that to not possible to say for shore:
Specifically con points out it’s hard to measure attractiveness and the impacts of each specific area, that pro cannot read minds to get more objective data, and sometimes it’s not always clear what women’s preferences always are (you don’t know what you don’t know).
I tend to agree with con on these grounds to be honest.
So: pro successfully refutes one part of cons argument: that you can’t tell. The scientific data pro provided I’m going to accept on its face, as he mounts a reasonable response to why his data should be accepted.
Throughout this round, what pro does is argue that his data is accurate and valid. The other relevant prong is that pro argues that the evolutionary interpretation would appear to indicate a broad strategy maybe best - but I don’t feel pro justifies why the theoretical examples apply to the real world - that requires data.
My main issue with pros argument - is that his main points in the opening round remain that women are attracted to individual traits - but pro offers no real argument to justify the impact of being much better at one thing - average in the rest vs a little above average.
As con made opening arguments, but skipped a round - I won’t view this as a violation (though pro should note that you don’t necessarily need acceptance here unlike DDO).
I will also point out pro states BoP is on him in the description - so I will view it as such as this is the description that con agrees to in the debate - and neither side argue that the description is invalid. I will view cons first round as his first reply in this RFD.
Pro is arguing that women are attracted by men who are all rounded, rather than specialized. I found the title a bit confusing, as it kinda changed in the description.
My main issue, is what constitutes the “good at one thing”. It’s not defined, and as human are normally a collection of traits it could be argued that to some degree each are measured on their all round holistic ability.
Because of this, it’s hard for me to pick what a win would look like. Pros autism savant point - is it the success that is not important, or empathy and social interaction - the collection - that is an issue. If that is the case, I feel that this would render this debate unwinnable by con.
Instead I have to take the position that pro must argue that being exceptional in one way and average in others is less attractive than being a bit above average in multiple aspects.
The first main argument he makes is evolutionary. While I think it would make sense from an evolutionarily stand point - I do not feel that this is sufficient - the reason is that pro doesn’t give me a reason to believe that because it makes sense in the context of evolution that this is what is happening in the real world - pro did not provide warrant for that connection.
Pro lists a number of attraction factors and provides some level of justification that woman are attracted based on these features.
meant that burden of proof is not EQUAL. not shared.