The Instigator
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
Bricheze
Pro (for)
Losing
32 Points

After/assuming this debate concludes, the contender ought to go on a date with Logical-Master

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,581 times Debate No: 6483
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (11)

 

Logical-Master

Con

CLARIFICATION ON THE PARAMETERS OF THIS DEBATE:

1) I didn't have enough space to word the resolution properly so basically, my intent is to argue specifically on my opponent. In other words, I shall analyze my opponent and then provide reasons as to why the two of us should not go on a date. When the contender accepts the debate, the resolution should be understood as "After/If this debate concludes, "[insert Contender's name]" ought to go out on a date with Logical-Master." Thus, I will not start the debate until the second round. My opponent is free to provide arguments upon accepting this round (or can wait until R2).

2) I would suggest that my opponent only accept if a female. As a male, my opponent would have to prove that I was gay and quite frankly, I feel that this would not only be against my intentions of this debate, but would also be rather difficult to prove (especially online).

3) No going against the intent of the debate as well as providing ridiculous semantics. For you semantic lovers, I have created a debate specifically for youin the past and am willing to create one again if your semanticating urges overcome you. And no kritiks either. They are smelly.

If there are any questions, feel free to provide them in the comment section.
Bricheze

Pro

I would just like to ask my opponent not to use the argument that meeting people online is unfair. It should mainly be about how we would be in a relationship.

First off, I am single :) We would make a good couple because we both enjoy debates and philosophical discussion. We largely agree, with 72% of our issues being the same. Our disagreances aren't on major issues and we would get along well. We also both students and could help each other through school.

Also, why shouldn't we try? It's always good to try on any relationship, just one date to see if we would be interested in each other.
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Con

Salutations to my opponent and many thanks for taking up this 'momentous' debate. My opponent has requested that I not provide any arguments that concern the notion of meeting people online as well as the many possible negative aspects of such a decision, ergo . . . being the debater that I am, I shall use no such argument in this debate and shall still prove my stance beyond the notion of a doubt. With that said, let us proceed:

First, lets start with the contenders arguments:

RE: "First off, I am single :) We would make a good couple because we both enjoy debates and philosophical discussion. We largely agree, with 72% of our issues being the same. Our disagreances aren't on major issues and we would get along well. We also both students and could help each other through school."

1) It's true that we agree on 72% of our issues and that we both like debating as well as philosophical discussion . . . however, as one may note through quickly viewing the 109 debates which I've debated on this site, the "issues" do not interest nor do I think of them as having any real importance in terms of my word view. Furthermore, as can be described by the book "Type Talk" (Kroeger 226), individuals of my personality type (scroll down to see what my personality type is) are known as being argumentative:

"INTJs are among the most independent of the sixteen types. Their theme song may be "My Way." As with other NTs, this independence often gives them an aura of arrogance that makes in-depth relationships develop slowly. At both work and play they can often seem aloof and sometimes argumentative. For INTJs, such behavior is simply the result of their attempt to stimulate the world around them . . . The problem is that an INTJ's friendly discussion may be seen by others as hostile, even obnoxious behavior."

So essentially, it is most likely that my love for debate would be a means of making the date lousy, given that this is how I would most likely appear in the eyes of my opponent.

2) Whereas my opponent is merely a high school student (most likely a sophomore), I am a college student. Thus, the notion that we'd be able to help one another is a wee bit preposterous given that we are both subjected to vastly different levels of education. In addition, by the time my opponent becomes a college student, I will be in law school, thus furthering the differences in our education. Thus, the idea that aiding one another in terms of education is thrown out of the window.

RE: "Also, why shouldn't we try? It's always good to try on any relationship, just one date to see if we would be interested in each other.

Initially, my opponent has claimed that this debate should mainly concern how a relationship between the two of us would play out, but this point in itself does not observe the potential good or bad to such a relationship. Nevertheless, I would have to disagree with the "give it a shot; what's there to lose" sentiment given that there are easier means of determining whether or not we are interested in one another. Otherwise, why shouldn't one go on a date with just about every individual they've come into contact with? After all, this would allow one to see whether or not their was mutual interest with every other individual they know, right?

Now, let us move on to my case . . .

============================================================================
CONTENTION #1: There is reason to believe that Logical-Master's skills are quite laughable when it comes to dealing with the opposite sex.
============================================================================

Let us take this discussion into consideration: http://www.debate.org...

"First of all, LM suggested you start a line with the word 'Say' ... as in, "Say, if you're not busy this weekend..." ... uh, is that a joke??? It's not 1952! Please oh please do NOT start a sentence with the word "Say" in it. LM, that was about the corniest thing you could possibly say. And if it was a joke, well, it's not funny so it'sstill corny lol :P"

First, we must keep in mind that the user who quoted this can be identified as a very experienced woman (which I shall elaborate on if necessary) and therefore a HIGHLY RELIABLE source. Second, I do use the word "say" quite often when speaking. Not just "say", but quite a few other mannerisms which were only popular in the early 50s . Clearly, if Ms Bricheze and I were to go on a date, she'd merely laugh at me, slap me, or perhaps even sneak out under the guise that she had to go "powder herself up" due to how "lame" I am. In others word, a date which the both of us would wish to place in the back of our minds as soon as possible. Of course, even if Ms. Bricheze were to SOMEHOW look past these lame characteristics, there is no doubt that even being around something as "corny" as myself would be detrimental to her appearance in front of others. Either way, not a good idea.

Now I have a few additional arguments to make, but shall not make them until I know the answer to the following question which I had posited towards my opponent in the comment section: "

Say . . . are you (the opposition) the kind of girl who is interested in being with the "bad boy." In terms of bad boy, I mean the kind that can be described here: http://www.askmen.com...

I already have a suspicion of what her answer shall be, but just wish to be sure so that I am assuming nothing.

In addition, I request that my opponent take this Myers Briggs Personality:http://www.humanmetrics.com... . After taking it, I would like here to tell me the four letters she received as describing her personality. She need not worry about length as its short as should take 2 minutes at most. To show that I have no tricks up my sleeve, I shall go ahead and reveal my score. I scored an INTJ (although it must be noted that on real life tests, I've always scored an INTJ/INTP).

Sources:

Kroeger, Otto. and Janet M. Thuesen. [underline]Type Talk: The 16 Personality Types that determine how we live, love and work[/underline] Tiden Press, 1988.

And that'll do it for now.
Bricheze

Pro

"Furthermore, as can be described by the book "Type Talk" (Kroeger 226), individuals of my personality type (scroll down to see what my personality type is) are known as being argumentative:"

How can you know that we will be argumentative until we actually go one on one on a date?

"So essentially, it is most likely that my love for debate would be a means of making the date lousy, given that this is how I would most likely appear in the eyes of my opponent."

Actually, I enjoy arguing quite a lot. You could ask any of my friends, all I ever seem to do is want to argue, several people don't like me when they originally meet me because of it. Until they realize I am just doing it for fun rather then trying to 'force' my opinions on them. It is because of this that I would see your arguing fun and not forceful. And that we could be even more perfect for each other, and we should still try it out on a date.

"Whereas my opponent is merely a high school student (most likely a sophomore), I am a college student."

Actually, I am going to a high school, but 6 of my 7 current classes are college level. So we could in fact 'help each other out' and anyways, it is just a simple date we are worrying about currently not in our entire relationship.

RE: "Also, why shouldn't we try? It's always good to try on any relationship, just one date to see if we would be interested in each other.

"Initially, my opponent has claimed that this debate should mainly concern how a relationship between the two of us would play out,"

True, but we should meet each other, instead of just predicting how we would do together, we should actually try being together and see how it goes. And we should predict the date, before we should predict our relationship. Not only that but, this debate is on a single date, not on our entire relationship. Not to say we can't talk about our relationship, but we shouldn't make our over all relationship the main component
.
"Nevertheless, I would have to disagree with the "give it a shot; what's there to lose" sentiment given that there are easier means of determining whether or not we are interested in one another. Otherwise, why shouldn't one go on a date with just about every individual they've come into contact with?"

Well you shouldn't date everyone, and their are reasons, first off, they must be interested in your sex gender; and must interested in general, secondly, they must have some possibility (AKA someone you find annoying you shouldn't just spontaneously ask out) we seem to have some possibility, don't you think?

"After all, this would allow one to see whether or not their was mutual interest with every other individual they know, right?"

Well, I said we do have mutual interest, therefore we should just 'go for it, and see what happens.'

Now, let us move on to my case . . .

============================================================================
CONTENTION #1: There is reason to believe that Logical-Master's skills are quite laughable when it comes to dealing with the opposite sex.
============================================================================

Let us take this discussion into consideration: http://www.debate.org......

"First of all, LM suggested you start a line with the word 'Say' ... as in, "Say, if you're not busy this weekend..." ... uh, is that a joke??? It's not 1952! Please oh please do NOT start a sentence with the word "Say" in it. LM, that was about the corniest thing you could possibly say. And if it was a joke, well, it's not funny so it'sstill corny lol :P"

"First, we must keep in mind that the user who quoted this can be identified as a very experienced woman (which I shall elaborate on if necessary) and therefore a HIGHLY RELIABLE source."

Not really, I like the little things in men that make them all individuals, one of my friends says 'lame' all the time I like it, don't hate it. Were all different and we all like and hate different things. Just becuase this women found you laughable, does not mean I would. Therefore, we should meet in real life, on a date, to see if I would find you laughable or not.

"Second, I do use the word "say" quite often when speaking. Not just "say", but quite a few other mannerisms which were only popular in the early 50s."

That's pretty cool sounding. I would love to hear fresh, well not new, but new to my ears, sayings.

"Clearly, if Ms Bricheze and I were to go on a date, she'd merely laugh at me, slap me, or perhaps even sneak out under the guise that she had to go "powder herself up" due to how "lame" I am."

I might laugh at your jokes, I would never slap a person, and sneaking out is just plain rude.

"In others word, a date which the both of us would wish to place in the back of our minds as soon as possible."

I still don't think you could predict how our date would go. The only way to know is to have it.

"Of course, even if Ms. Bricheze were to SOMEHOW look past these lame characteristics,"

I don't think their lame they simply sound original, newer, and individualistic.

"there is no doubt that even being around something as "corny" as myself would be detrimental to her appearance in front of others."

I'm not shallow enough to care, if I like you that's all that matters, I could care less about what my friends say.

"Say . . . are you (the opposition) the kind of girl who is interested in being with the "bad boy." In terms of bad boy, I mean the kind that can be described here: http://www.askmen.com...;

The only reason I ever watch that show is because I like the main character so much.

"In addition, I request that my opponent take this Myers Briggs Personality:http://www.humanmetrics.com...... . After taking it, I would like here to tell me the four letters she received as describing her personality. She need not worry about length as its short as should take 2 minutes at most. To show that I have no tricks up my sleeve, I shall go ahead and reveal my score. I scored an INTJ (although it must be noted that on real life tests, I've always scored an INTJ/INTP)."

I got this score:

Your Type is
INTP
IntrovertedIntuitiveThinkingPerceiving
Strength of the preferences %
11501211

My last response is 'Why not try?'
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Con

Ladies and gentleman, due to the results of the questioning which I had started with my opponent in the previous round, the format of this round shall be a little different. I'm going to start with mostly everything my opponent rebutted in the previous round. After doing this, I shall focus on the main attraction in this debate: 1) Our personality scores (I scored an INTJ and she scored an INTP) . 2) My opponent has claimed to like someone with the "bad boy" complex. Both of these matters deserve the utmost attention and shall thus be saved for last. Now, let us continue.

------>RE: "How can you know that we will be argumentative until we actually go one on one on a date?"

We can't necessarily "know" per se, but we can reasonably conclude what may indeed occur. For instance, you don't have to actually experience a relationship with someone who likes to cheat on you and flirt with every other guy while in your presence to know that you wouldn't like that kind of relationship, would you?

------>RE:"Actually, I am going to a high school, but 6 of my 7 current classes are college level. So we could in fact 'help each other out' and anyways, it is just a simple date we are worrying about currently not in our entire relationship."

Maybe, but there is quite a difference between taking classes which are "claimed" to be "college level" in high school and taking classes which are actually provided in college by actual college professors. Being a college student who took AP classes as well as self-proclaimed college level classes, I consider myself a good judge in claiming that although the material may be material which is discussed in college, the fact of the matter is that these teachers are still teaching at high school level, thus aren't as demanding. In other words, no 15 page papers with every sentence being cited from a different source. :D

Of course, all of this is besides the point. Unless both my opponent and I are going to same college and are on the same level (which, by the time she enters college, I'll be in law school), this point can be dismissed.

----->RE:True, but we should meet each other, instead of just predicting how we would do together, we should actually try being together and see how it goes . . . we can't talk about our relationship, but we shouldn't make our over all relationship the main component

How we could do in a relationship is rather relevant as the two of us not being computable won't necessarily prevent the date from being successful. The real relationship could easily result in a failure even with the date being successful. Thus, it is most important that we consider our compatibility rather than simply rely on the method that revolves around "not knowing without trying."

----->RE: Well you shouldn't date everyone, and their are reasons, first off, they must be interested in your sex gender; and must interested in general, secondly, they must have some possibility (AKA someone you find annoying you shouldn't just spontaneously ask out) we seem to have some possibility, don't you think?

Ladies and gentleman, my opponent has just provided reasons as to why we should not merely date each on the basis of the idea that "we cannot know without trying". We must determine whether or not we are both interested and and whether or not there is possibility that it could work out between the two of us. Given that my job is to negate the resolution, my answer to my opponent's question is no as my job is to argue against their being possibility. :D

----->RE: "I'm not shallow enough to care, if I like you that's all that matters, I could care less about what my friends say.'

Due to space constraints, I shall be omitting the part of this argument that concerned the highly likely possibility that my opponent would annoyed by my mannerisms. Still, in answer to the above, I'd say that whether or not my opponent would care about what others thought of her, my "out of the ordinary" mannerisms could prove detrimental to her if our relationship were to progress after dating. This is not merely based on what friends may think of her, but what people of financial/social power may think (employers typically). The thing about our careers in the US is that most of them judge "presentation" more than anything else and my opponent having a partner who isn't exactly in the norm when it comes to mannerisms could in fact damage her career wise (at very least, in terms of getting a promotion).

================================
INTP vs INTJ
================================

INTJ:http://www.personalitypage.com...

INTP: http://www.personalitypage.com...

Ladies and gentleman, if you would be so kind as to take a gander at each of these pages, you shall see for yourself that both my opponent and I do not make that good of a couple. Don't believe me? First, lets explore the weakness to both of our personality types:

INTJ:
-Not naturally good at expressing feelings and affections
-Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times

INTP:
-Not naturally in tune with others' feelings; slow to respond to emotional needs
-Not naturally good at expressing their own feelings and emotions

It may be true that both my opponent and I would be able to satisfy our intellectual needs, but given the above affects concerning the weaknesses of our personalities, our relationship would be most likely be pretty rocky on an emotional level (which surpasses the previous need). In other words, we would hardly be able to support one another in our time of emotional need. This weakness is quite crucial as it could very well make the relationship quite a miserable one. In addition, when adding in the fact that one of the traits of INTJs is that they are very independent, the above problem concerning mutual support is amplified even further. To quote a significant line from the INTJ page: "INTJs live much of their lives inside their own heads. "

To add fuel to the fire on what could amplify the above problem, let us keep in mind the following quote concerning INTPs: "INTPs do not like to deal with messy complications, such as interpersonal conflict, and so they may fall into the habit of ignoring conflict when it occurs." Ignoring a problem is not a good meas of dealing with it. In addition, this shall only detract from the ability to support as supporting one another may often come in the form of being able to deal with the conflict that exist in the relationship.

In spite of other benefits that may come from this coupling (which PRO will no doubt attempt to cite), the above weakness is crucial as "supporting one another" is the most important part of a romantic relationship.

And this is all I shall say regarding our personalities for the time being. If necessary, I shall expound more on the above ideas in the next round.

========================================
PRO prefers those who are 'Rugged and doing whatever needs to be done, no matter how it needs to be done
========================================

I'm not quite sure what is meant by rugged, so I'll leave that alone for now and request that she provide an example. Though in terms of doing whatever needs to be done no matter what my methods are, I am most certainly not the kind of person who lives by such mindset as I do not believe that the ends justify the means. Evidence of this fact can be shown in this debate: http://www.debate.org...

In this debate, we must note that I was against the methods a fictional character who in favor of doing whatever needs to be done, no matter how it needs to be done (just read my R1). My reasons for starting this debate were based on personal belief and that I wished to debate with a fellow fan of the series who had an opposing belief.

Back to you, Ms. Bricheze. :D
Bricheze

Pro

"We can't necessarily "know" per se, but we can reasonably conclude what may indeed occur."

We both enjoy argueing, so is it truly bad that we would both argue? No. While it may seem odd to other people that in our relationship we argue for fun, but in the relationship we would enjoy the arguments. Not only that, but because we do agree on pretty much all of the major issues we wouldn't get into any fearsome or relationship detrimental arguments

------>RE:"Actually, I am going to a high school, but 6 of my 7 current classes are college level. So we could in fact 'help each other out' and anyways, it is just a simple date we are worrying about currently not in our entire relationship."

----->RE: "Thus, it is most important that we consider our compatibility rather than simply rely on the method that revolves around "not knowing without trying.""

Our relationship could still be very good whether or not we deem it to be here. The best way to decide if we are compatible is meeting and going on one or more dates.

----->RE: "Ladies and gentleman, my opponent has just provided reasons as to why we should not merely date each on the basis of the idea that "we cannot know without trying". We must determine whether or not we are both interested and and whether or not there is possibility that it could work out between the two of us. Given that my job is to negate the resolution, my answer to my opponent's question is no as my job is to argue against their being possibility."

Stating that there is no possibility is rather harsh, and their has to be no possibility for us to not ever go on one date. And for several reasons we have possibility:

a) We both enjoy debate, and would enjoy arguing together about non-serious issues, ones that would not progress into serious arguments or fights.
b) I enjoy your traits that make you more individualistic
c) As of right now, a date would allow us to truly meet, date, and see for ourselves whether or not we could be a good couple

----->RE: "I'm not shallow enough to care, if I like you that's all that matters, I could care less about what my friends say.'

"Still, in answer to the above, I'd say that whether or not my opponent would care about what others thought of her, my "out of the ordinary" mannerisms could prove detrimental to her if our relationship were to progress after dating. This is not merely based on what friends may think of her, but what people of financial/social power may think (employers typically). The thing about our careers in the US is that most of them judge "presentation" more than anything else and my opponent having a partner who isn't exactly in the norm when it comes to mannerisms could in fact damage her career wise (at very least, in terms of getting a promotion)."

If you are so worried about affecting my career, you could simply not meet my employers. No, I wouldn't be 'hiding' you from them, but if you fear ruining my career, you could hide from them yourself. I would not force you, because if our relationship grew that much I would be proud of you :D

================================
INTP vs INTJ
================================

INTJ:http://www.personalitypage.com......

INTP: http://www.personalitypage.com......

Ladies and gentleman, if you would be so kind as to take a gander at each of these pages, you shall see for yourself that both my opponent and I do not make that good of a couple. Don't believe me? First, lets explore the weakness to both of our personality types:

INTJ:
-Not naturally good at expressing feelings and affections
-Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times

INTP:
-Not naturally in tune with others' feelings; slow to respond to emotional needs
-Not naturally good at expressing their own feelings and emotions

"It may be true that both my opponent and I would be able to satisfy our intellectual needs, but given the above affects concerning the weaknesses of our personalities, our relationship would be most likely be pretty rocky on an emotional level (which surpasses the previous need)."

Actually, this could cause the opposite effect. We are both bad at dealing with emotions, but we are both bad at expressing them. Therefore, this would cause the problems to cancel each other out, and we would have no emotional problems at all. Neither of us would want to talk about or express our emotions. Not only that, but every relationship is going to have weaknesses, but we must not forget our possible strengths:

INTP: Generally laid-back and easy-going, willing to defer to their mates
INTJ: Tendency to believe that they're always right

If you are going to believe you are always right, that matches with my personality because in my personality I am laid back, willing to let you win, and happy to differ in opinions with you.

INTP: Do not feel personally threatened by conflict or criticism
INTJ: Not threatened by conflict or criticism

We match :P

I could find more and will if the need arises.

I would, however like to share this quote from the website:

INTJ: "They're likely to leave relationships which aren't working for them"

If this doesn't work out, we are obviously not going to be stuck in some awful relationship forever.

"Two well-developed individuals of any type can enjoy a healthy relationship."

Even this website agrees, our personalities are not of upmost importance. We could still easily have a good healthy relationship and the truth is, the only way to know for absolutely sure is to have a date. Not only that, but we could have easily been misdiagnosed. You said it yourself, your personality has changed with the different tests you have taken

========================================
"PRO prefers those who are 'Rugged and doing whatever needs to be done, no matter how it needs to be done"
========================================

Actually, your slightly twisting this. See you asked me what kind of 'bad boys' I liked. In response I said that as far as the 'bad boy' look went I disliked men who were bad people, but within the confines of bad boys I preferred a a bad boy figured man to be 'willing to do what needs to be done, not matter how it needs to be done' I never once said this was my overall preference in men nor did I lead you to believe I like rugged bad boys over any other kind of person.

"I'm not quite sure what is meant by rugged, so I'll leave that alone for now and request that she provide an example."

Well naturally all women are physically drawn to rugged men ;) But once again, I prefer 'rugged looking BAD BOYS." Not men altogether, just considering bad boys that is how I feel.

"Though in terms of doing whatever needs to be done no matter what my methods are, I am most certainly not the kind of person who lives by such mindset as I do not believe that the ends justify the means. Evidence of this fact can be shown in this debate: http://www.debate.org...;

Honestly, I don't know why you brought this up. You aren't a bad boy and yet you asked me what kind of bad boy I liked? It would have been more understanding if you asked if I liked 'bad boys' over regular men, but you didn't. And you didn't bring into the debate the fact that you asked me specifics on bad boys, not my general idea of bad boys over other types of men.
Debate Round No. 3
Logical-Master

Con

Logical-Master forfeited this round.
Bricheze

Pro

Bricheze forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
dude i hope if i ever get in trouble I get Logical-Master as my lawyer. I bet this guy would win every single trial lol
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
So, I ased in the beginning of the debate that age not be put into account. I hope that's not why you voted for my opponent.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
My approximation is that L-M is 4 years older than Bricheze...
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
Ya, my 'wanting to argue' syndrome can get one of my favorite teachers mad at me, and then I'll always be arguing with my friends... it can be a problem sometimes, but I don't think I'll never get over it!
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Anyways, thanks for the debate, Bricheze.

For what it's worth, if you were a bit closer to my age, went to the same college I do, I'd pursue such a date without hesitation. When you said the following:

"You could ask any of my friends, all I ever seem to do is want to argue, several people don't like me when they originally meet me because of it. Until they realize I am just doing it for fun rather then trying to 'force' my opinions on them. "

That reminded me quite a bit about myself except this even extends to my family members given that my sibling as well as my mother get annoyed at my constant desire to argue. It drives them crazy. For the most part, I had ended up playing devil's advocate in this debate as you did give reasons which I could actually agree with (though don't bring this up in your 4th round. :P)

Anyways, I'm off. Hasta luego. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
NOTE: DO NOT CONSIDER ANYTHING WHICH I'VE POSTED IN THE COMMENT SECTION when evaluating the debate.

Personally, I think that it must take 5 seconds just to process the round or something as this isn't the first time this has happened, but I take complete responsibility for my absence
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
FROM BOTTOM TO TOP.

RE: "If you are going to believe you are always right, that matches with my personality because in my personality I am laid back, willing to let you win, and happy to differ in opinions with you."

We must keep in mind that INTJs are expressed as being rather intelligent (on par with INTPs). When taking into account my intelligence as well as the fact that my opponent has admitted that she'd merely be letting me win, there is no doubt that I'd continue pressing issues until I believed that she had truly conceded. No doubt would I do this until one of us was annoyed. :P

RE: "We match :P"

Perhaps, but as insisted earlier, the flaw which I've exposed can easily break the relationship. Dealing with one anothers emotional needs is the most important aspect of the relationship.

RE:"If this doesn't work out, we are obviously not going to be stuck in some awful relationship forever."

Reading the same website, note that INTPs are described as individuals who have trouble leaving relationships. Hence, this cancels out.

RE: "Even this website agrees, our personalities are not of upmost importance. "

Yes, provided these individuals are well developed in their traits (hence the use of the term well developed).

Finally, in response to the "bad boy" bit, if you'll all look back to my original question, I clearly request to know whether or not my opponent preferred someone of the bad boy archetype. My opponent responded by saying yes, even going so far as sto specify what kind of "bad boy"

My argument is that I not only don't meet her preference, hence less reason to affirm the topic

And I'm out of time.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"If you are so worried about affecting my career, you could simply not meet my employers. No, I wouldn't be 'hiding' you from them, but if you fear ruining my career, you could hide from them yourself. I would not force you, because if our relationship grew that much I would be proud of you :D"

Although this is an admirable solution, I'm afraid this would only put my opponent in even hotter water when it came to getting a promotion for having a partner who "hides himself" most likely wouldn't bold well in the eyes of my opponent's employer. They will either believe my opponent has settled for a complete nut or a complete coward :D Thus, the problem concerning presentation would still remain. In addition, to go one step even further, my mannerisms could also hurt my career as well (not to mention that I wouldn't simply be able to "hide"). This could easily result in me never getting promotion. Heck, it could even result in me gettnig laid off, thus not enabling me to pull my own weight when it came to the finances.

RE: "Actually, this could cause the opposite effect. We are both bad at dealing with emotions, but we are both bad at expressing them. Therefore, this would cause the problems to cancel each other out, and we would have no emotional problems at all. Neither of us would want to talk about or express our emotions. Not only that, but every relationship is going to have weaknesses, but we must not forget our possible strengths:"

Nah, I'm afraid PRO's reasoning doesn't follow. We'd have emotional problems alright (there is no one who doesn't). We just wouldn't want to talk about them. :D Without talking about (dealing with) them, they would remain. With these problems remaining, the relationship would get bogged down to the point where were both unhappy. And I agree that every relationship has weaknesses, but the weaknesses which I've pointed out are relationship-breaking weaknesses.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
RE: RE: " And for several reasons we have possibility:

a) We both enjoy debate, and would enjoy arguing together about non-serious issues, ones that would not progress into serious arguments or fights.
b) I enjoy your traits that make you more individualistic
c) As of right now, a date would allow us to truly meet, date, and see for ourselves whether or not we could be a good couple"

Ladies and gentleman, I shall not deny any of our similarities which PRO has pointed out. However, I do deny that these mere similarities are significant enough of a reason for us to pursue a relationship through initiating it with a date. Indeed, we may both like debating and my opponent may like my individualistic traits, but these similarities seem to be the kind of similarities that would build a good friendship between the two of us. However, as I've shown (and will clarify further on) with our personality types, they are quite incomptable when it comes to a romantic relationship.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
RE: "Our relationship could still be very good whether or not we deem it to be here. "The best way to decide if we are compatible is meeting and going on one or more dates.

Indeed, it's very well possible that it could be good (just about anything is possible), but most unlikely. ;)

As for "the best way to decide" . . . as I have pointed out in the previous round, a date can easily be successful while still leading to relationship that shall be no more than a failure. To expound on this a bit, what I meant to insist is that dating is merely nothing more than a means to INITIATE the relationship. It is not necessarily a means of determining how two individuals shall perform in a relationship. Whether or not two individuals have a good time at movie theater or debating over pointless minutia all night, this is not really an accurate means of determining comptability. I'm sure all the individuals who contribute to the high divorce rate had successful dates, but as we can see quite clearly, the end result was dismissal.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by wweasel 6 years ago
wweasel
Logical-MasterBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-MasterBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Logical-MasterBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Logical-MasterBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Logical-MasterBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Logical-MasterBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 8 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
Logical-MasterBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Logical-MasterBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
Logical-MasterBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
Logical-MasterBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07