The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

7-Day Cycle of Masturbation Abstinence Helps Attract Women

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,927 times Debate No: 35409
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)




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.

(1) Acceptance
(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 accept this debate.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


I'm going to have to forfeit due to time restrictions. I still have 6 hours left to post, but I have to pressure wash two houses today. I apologize for the inconvenience.


Since my opponent forfeited the opening round, I urge voters to read any future arguments with heavy prejudice. As stated in R1, Pro has the burden of proof; in order to win this debate, Pro must show his case to be true. Without presenting a case, Pro leaves me no argument to criticize and concedes the debate.

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% [1]. 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.
Debate Round No. 2


Yeah, the dude guessed it all. Studies are stupid and stuff. Vote for people. K.

I would like to debate this topic though. Maybe if we do 12-hr rounds on a weekend. Hmm... *thinks forever*


My opponent concedes, vote Con.

Too bad WSA's schedule got in the way of this debate...
Debate Round No. 3


Wallstreetatheist forfeited this round.


Pro forfeit. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 3 years ago
>Posts debate topic after several debate-less months
>Debate gets accepted by best debater on the site
> :'(
Posted by Raisor 3 years ago
That's a bad argument.

Pro's response: "since I didn't give a definition, the definition is a point of contention that either side could win. Here's my definition, which is better than Con's for the following reasons..."
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
Con, this is when you use semantics: "Since pro did not give a definition, I'll use my own." Works every time.
Posted by ZakYoungTheLibertarian 3 years ago
This is virtually undeniable.
Posted by drafterman 3 years ago
(1) Debater must have wanking experience and internet access.
Posted by Wocambs 3 years ago
Whatever hormonal response there is, I am fairly certain that informing a woman that you maintain such a cycle is likely to weaken your attempts to attract her.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 3 years ago
Debate opened for anyone who wants to engage in intellectual masturbation on the topic of masturbation/ejaculation
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 3 years ago
Yes, God abstained from masturbation for 7 days and then went out to make a girl's night?
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
7 days... where have I heard that befo-H MY GOD

God rested on the seventh day 0_0






Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
Pro is most probably going to win the debate. There are research studies that prove his position. I imagine that he will focus on the psychological side(you'll be more willing to approach females if you're horny) and the biological side(the 7th day peak of testosterone).

This is not an easy debate at all.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.