7-Day Cycle of Masturbation Abstinence Helps Attract Women
Debate Rounds (4)
Resolution: the 7-Day Cycle of Masturbation Abstinence Helps Attract Women
(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.
(2) Main Argument
(3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument
(4) Response to rebuttal + closing arguments + voting issues (one paragraph)
7-Day Cycle of Masturbation Abstinence: Witholding the act of male masturbation until the end of the 7th consecutive day of abstinence from the activity (masturbating, orgasming, and ejaculating included)
Masturbating: stroking the male geintals until orgasm and ejaculation. Orgasming and ejaculating without masturbation shall not be considered masturbation for the entirety of this debate.
Burden of Proof:
I have the burden of proof and my opponent will have the burden of rejoinder. We both must provide adequate justification for our respective side. This debate will chiefly delve into the characteristic effects that masturbation has on attracting women. Strong support is encouraged.
By accepting this debate you accept the rules, definitions, and BOP.
I will point out that the phrase "helps attract women" has not been defined in the opening round. I request that Pro clearly explain his interpretation of the phrase in R2, though I withhold the right to contest his interpretation as I made no agreement to the definition in R1. Basically, I think the phrase might be relevant in deciding this debate and am letting everyone know up front I think its fair game as a point of contention and want to make that clear up front.
I have the burden of rejoinder in this debate, meaning a large part of my case rests in demonstrating why Pro"s case is incorrect. My position is inherently reactionary; my case is a response to Pro"s case/ In not posting an opening round, Pro affords me less time to consider his case and poke holes in it. Not only does he deprive me of at least one speech to take apart his case, he deprives me of the physical time to consider and review any evidence he might put forward. In not posting an opening round, he keeps his case hidden for up to 6 days of time I would otherwise have.
Pro wins or loses a PRO BOP debate based on his opening round- the opening is his case and the remaining round parry criticisms from Con. This means that Pro uniquely benefits from a shorter debate. All Pro needs is a strong opening round to win- Con needs the time to critique. The additional time afforded Pro by skipping the opening round also gives Pro more time to work on his case, while depriving me of time to consider his, meaning the time skew cuts me both ways.
None of this is to suggest that Pro intentionally did not post or failed to post for strategic reasons. My argument is only that in being unable to post, Pro has skewed the debate in his favor. Judges ought to consider this by awarding Con the conduct point and considering any future arguments by Pro with prejudice.
Predictions of Pro"s Case
Pro will likely cite a Chinese study that purports to show a spike in testosterone levels that occurs after the eruptive cessation of 7 days of male abstinence. This study is problematic in that Pro"s claim rests on a single study with 14 participants showing a supposed peak. Numerous questions of methodology arise from this one study, which is why science is built on repeatability and why multiple studies are needed to verify a claim. For example, the study compares the peak to a "baseline" but doesn"t describe what the baseline was- if it was a group average, individual average, if it was an average that included or excluded the peak, etc.
Males already undergo cyclic testosterone levels that vary by 9-28% . The Chinese study does not discuss this natural cyclic variation in relation to their results.
Even if the 7-day peak was a real phenomenon, Pro would have to explain how it helps attract women. This argument likely will rest on a chain of argument with considerably shaky claims, all of which he will have to demonstrate. Each step in his argumentative chain carries with it a strong stain of uncertainty and skepticism. Since Pro has the BOP, the weight of skepticism tilts the scales toward my position. Pro must defend the claim that the 7 day cycle "helps attract women" not that it "might help attract women" or "more likely than not helps attract women." Any uncertainty left at the end of the debate is a reason to vote Con.
I would like to debate this topic though. Maybe if we do 12-hr rounds on a weekend. Hmm... *thinks forever*
Too bad WSA's schedule got in the way of this debate...
Wallstreetatheist forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.