The Instigator
jar2187
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

Is My Opponent Ready to be in a Relationship?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,428 times Debate No: 16471
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

jar2187

Con

I will argue that my opponent is not ready to be in a relationship.
Ore_Ele

Pro

Since words were not defined, I will do so now.

Relationship [1] - "•a relation between people; (`relationship' is often used where `relation' would serve, as in `the relationship between inflation and unemployment', but the preferred usage of `relationship' is for human relations or states of relatedness); "the relationship between mothers and their children"
•a state of connectedness between people (especially an emotional connection); "he didn't want his wife to know of the relationship"
•a state involving mutual dealings between people or parties or countries
•kinship: (anthropology) relatedness or connection by blood or marriage or adoption"

I will take this to mean point number 2 (focusing on the emotional connection), however, my opponent may argue different ways if he wishes. I will not go into petty semantics of "any interaction is a relationship of some type," as that would kill the spirit of the debate.

I will let my opponent begin.

[1] http://www.google.com...=
Debate Round No. 1
jar2187

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

My argument is this: By focusing on point 2, my opponent cannot prove to himself that he has an emotional connection for his partner, nor that he has any intense feeling or deep affection for him/her. It is impertive to do this in order for to be ready for a relationship. Since he cannot do so, he is not ready for a relationship.

It is now my opponent's turn to counter. Thank you.
Ore_Ele

Pro

I actually can prove that I have an emotional connection to my partner. This can be done by monintering brain activity while seeing a picture of them vs seeing a picture of a random person. We can also prove that there is an emotional connection through monitering hormone levels which are tied to emotions, such as Oxytocin. For more info on what we know about emotions and the brain, see here [1][2].

I would also like to point out that since the body naturally releases hormones, like Oxytocin, to create emotional bonds during pregnancy (in my case, my wife is pregnant). And the release of Oxytocin after sex to cause emtional connection [3]. And I can say, that I have had sex with my wife at least once.

[1] http://www.minirthclinic.com...
[2] http://www.ahealthymind.org...
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
jar2187

Con

"I actually can prove that I have an emotional connection to my partner. This can be done by monintering brain activity while seeing a picture of them vs seeing a picture of a random person."
My opponent is merely assuming that 1) his brain is diseased free, 2) he is not lying 3) that the machines are 100% reliable, 4) that every brain is the same, 5) that he will not react to random person.

1) How can we know that his brain does not have a disease? It may be the case that his brain scan will light up the part of his, without him actually experiencing any emotion of love at all. [1]

2) Now consider that he has a disease free brain. What evidence do we have to suggest that he will not lie about his emotional connectedness to his wife? My opponent could be a talent liar. He may know how to cause the correct, without necessarily experiencing any emotional connection at all…[2]

3) Consider that he is not lying and that his brain is diseased free. Machines such as fMRIs, PETs, and others have been known to give out “false signals”, noise that can interfere with the machinery and decrease the accuracy of the scan. This noise can come from the machine itself or activity from the brain. This can result in misleading scans. It is possible that we may see a picture of my opponent’s brain light up in the area we are looking for, yet he himself may not actually experience any brain activity there at all. [3]

4) Most brains follow a similar networking, complete with a complex system of muscles, glands, neurons and synapses. But despite the wiring, might his brain be the same as anyone else? It might not be. Is that the case that, when we put my opponent’s brain under a certain scan, the area for hate will actually light up? Yes it could be. What if what he thinks is love is what we would call hate? What if he actually hates his wife? Might it be possible that his brain scan may mislead us into a faulty conclusion? Yes, it might.

Many times, the same area will not light up for a different persons, even though they claim to be in love. This is why “scientists are wary of scans that claim to identify these things” such as love. If this happens to my opponent, let us say that this only undermines his case for the reliance in machines to determine his love for his partner, not his supposed love for his partner.

5) How are we certain that the same area of his brain will not light up for the random person? And if he says that he does not love this random person, what are we to make of his ideas on love? His brain may be unreliable. Love at first sight or a mistake premise for both? What standard does he have to measure emotional connection? So far, he has provided nothing sound.

"We can also prove that there is an emotional connection through monitering hormone levels which are tied to emotions, such as Oxytocin."

"I would also like to point out that since the body naturally releases hormones, like Oxytocin, to create emotional bonds during pregnancy (in my case, my wife is pregnant)."

Congratulations to my opponent, he will be a father. But this is irrelevant. We are not talking about my opponent's wife or her emotional connectedness to him or his child, especially during pregnancy. We are talking about his connection to his wife...

“And the release of Oxytocin after sex to cause emtional connection.”
Is that to say that my opponent did not have an emotional connection to his partner before sex? If so, then oxytocins are not the cause of his emotional connection. If so, and if he’s had an emotional connection with his wife before sex, then oxytocins are irrelevant in determining emotional connectedness and my opponent was never ready to be in a relationship in the first place.

And sex does not equal love or emotional connectedness. And why my opponent is confusing ‘love’ with ‘emotional connection/connectedness’ is beyond me…

"And I can say, that I have had sex with my wife at least once."

Congratulations. I thank my opponent for his rebuttal.

[1] Brain Disease: http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] Lie Detection: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] False Signals Cause Misleading Brain Scans:http://www.npr.org...
Ore_Ele

Pro

I will first go through my opponent's arguments quickly before bringing up my own arguements.

First, the 5 that he started with.

"1) his brain is diseased free,"

That assumption is not made. I am assuming it is free of a few particular diseases, because if I had those diseases, I would not experience the emotions that I do, I would be experiencing nothing, of which I would be aware of. My opponent asked how I can "prove to myself," not to others.

"2) he is not lying"

I would know if I was lying or not. You may not know, but I do.

"3) that the machines are 100% reliable,"

They don't have to be, only accurate enough. Our eyes are not 100% reliable, however, we can still see things with them.

"4) that every brain is the same"

That is also not being assumed, only that every brain is similar, not the same. Every car is different, but they all have similarities.

"5) that he will not react to random person."

Also not assumed. I will react to a random person, however, I will react differently. I know this, because I can personally feel the difference between seeing a random person and with seeing my wife. This would also become visable though brain activity and chemical scans (which were not addressed by my opponent)

Now to the other arguments

"Is that to say that my opponent did not have an emotional connection to his partner before sex?"

That is not to say that. Oxytocin is released in comparitively large amounts, however it is always present. This means that you can become emotionally attached to someone with sex, but sex speeds things up. This was mentioned in previous sources, however, for a more straight forward understanding [1]

"And why my opponent is confusing ‘love' with ‘emotional connection/connectedness' is beyond me…"

This is the main strawman of my opponent's argument. I encourage all viewers, readers, and voters, to go back to my argument and look for where I mentioned "love." You will see that it did not come up once. While my opponent brought it up many times. Oxytocin is pair bonding hormone [1]. Its entire purpose in our bodies is to create an emotional bond with someone or something. There are many tests which can indicate the release of this hormone, and so an emotional connection, of which my opponent did not refute from last round (he only targeted brain activity scans, not chemical scans).

Second, I'd like to point out that it is my opponent that needs to show that I am not ready for a relationship. Simply saying that I cannot 100% prove to others that I'm ready is not enough to show that I'm not ready.

Also, for more on Oxytocin, my previous links provide a lot of info.

Thank you,

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
jar2187

Con

I thank my opponent for his rebuttal

"I am assuming it is free of a few particular diseases, because if I had those diseases, I would not experience the emotions that I do, I would be experiencing nothing, of which I would be aware of. My opponent asked how I can "prove to myself," not to others."

What my opponent means is that he will not experience emotional connectedness, not that he will "experience nothing" and be aware of it (how is that possible? it's not). But if his disease leads his to think that he will, when all along it was artificial, what of it now? Proved to himself, in this case means tricked himself.

"I would know if I was lying or not."

Not in the case of fabrication[1] that is, a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true.

[The machines] don't have to be [100% reliable], only accurate enough. Our eyes are not 100% reliable, however, we can still see things with them."
And since there is a possibility that the machines will give out a misleading scan, there is no reason to believe that it won't happen in this case.

"That is also not being assumed, only that every brain is similar, not the same. Every car is different, but they all have similarities."
As I said, if we put my opponent’s brain under a certain scan, might the area for something else other than emotional connectedness light up, even though he states that he has an emotional connectedness? Yes, it might. [2]

"Also not assumed. I will react to a random person, however, I will react differently."
Uncertain; possibly a fabrication? As in the case, he may react the same way he does to his wife.

"I know this, because I can personally feel the difference between seeing a random person and with seeing my wife."
Another fabrication, perhaps? And what of the scans, if they do not confirm the difference...

"This would also become visable though brain activity and chemical scans (which were not addressed by my opponent)"
My opponent has not read any of my points. So much for his rebuttals.

Clearly, my opponents has not read any of my points carefully nor has he addressed them.

"That is not to say that. Oxytocin is released in comparitively large amounts, however it is always present."
Then this is not the basis of his emotional connectedness, and thus is irrelevant when determining if he has an emotional connection to his wife. He has said that oxytocin is always present. If so, then it was present before he met his wife. If we are to test his oxycotin level before he met his wife, they would show positive.

"Second, I'd like to point out that it is my opponent that needs to show that I am not ready for a relationship. Simply saying that I cannot 100% prove to others that I'm ready is not enough to show that I'm not ready."
I have shown that his methods have falter.

I thank my opponent for his rebuttal.

[1] Lie: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] False Signals Cause Misleading Brain Scans:http://www.npr.org......
Ore_Ele

Pro

"What my opponent means is that he will not experience emotional connectedness, not that he will "experience nothing" and be aware of it (how is that possible? it's not)."

Not the case. If I am not actually connected to my wife, I would be aware of it. Kind of like if you have a head aches, you are aware of it, you can feel it. And as such, if I'm not having a headache, I can feel that there is no headache.

I cannot be "tricked" into having an artifical emotional connection. I could have an emotional connection which is not caused by my own hormones (like it is caused by a disease), however, it is still an emotional connection.

"Not in the case of fabrication[1] that is, a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true."

Also not the case. A fabrication requires that I have no idea if it is true or not, and I'm just winging it. If it is something that is believed to be true, but isn't, it is simply incorrect. As I can feel the connection, I fully believe it, and so is not a lie, nor a fabrication.

"My opponent has not read any of my points."

Obviously false, since if I didn't read ANY of them, I wouldn't be able to respond to them. My opponent has merely shown in his posts, that machines are not 100% accurate. This does not matter, since they don't have to be 100% accurate. My examples of the functionality of our eyes went unchallanged and so stands. It also still holds, that all of my opponents counters were based on equipment used to moniter brain activity, not chemical balances.

"Then this is not the basis of his emotional connectedness, and thus is irrelevant when determining if he has an emotional connection to his wife. He has said that oxytocin is always present. If so, then it was present before he met his wife. If we are to test his oxycotin level before he met his wife, they would show positive."

I am going to have to assume that my opponent did not read the links about Oxytocin. Oxytocin is not something which is either "possitive" or "negative" in our system (meaning either there or not there). It is always there, however, different emotional responces cause an increase in the oxytocin levels. Monitering those increases is how we can scientifically tell that there is an emotional connection.

Apart from all that, my opponent has still not presented any arguments that I am not ready for a relationship.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
jar2187

Con

"...if I'm not having a headache, I can feel that there is no headache."
You can't feel that you have no headache, you just don't feel a hadache. That should be self-evident.

"I cannot be "tricked" into having an artifical emotional connection."
Yes, you (your brain) could trick yourself into believing something when it is not. I.E., the eyes have a funny way of making us believe that something is there when it isn't/may not be. Perhaps the eyes aren't always "relibale enough" and may not give us the information we seek...

"I could have an emotional connection which is not caused by my own hormones (like it is caused by a disease), however, it is still an emotional connection."
My point, that my opponent has missed, is that what he may feel may not be an emotional connection, but may be something artificial. This something artificial may give off what appears to be emotional connectedness, but is in fact, not what he thinks it is.

"A fabrication requires that I have no idea if it is true or not, and I'm just winging it."

Incorrect. A fabrication requires that one makes a statement that one believes to be true, without knowing if it is indeed true. As I have said in my above posts...

"My opponent has merely shown in his posts, that machines are not 100% accurate. This does not matter, since they don't have to be 100% accurate."
My opponent merely read the bullet points at the beginning of post 3 and left it at that. If he had read further into the posts, instead of just winging it, he may have been attacking my substancial expound, which correlates to point 3 but is much more complex. But he did not. Extend my points.


"My examples of the functionality of our eyes went unchallanged and so stands."
Eyes can go bad and machines can go bad. Bad analogy, regardless. And fMRI machines can give off bad signals and misleading scans. They are not as reliable as he believes and may not give his the information he seeks...

"It also still holds, that all of my opponents counters were based on equipment used to moniter brain activity, not chemical balances."

In fact, fMRI's scan for both brain activity and chemical balances, since chemical balance create brain activity, so my objection still stands. His does not.

"I am going to have to assume that my opponent did not read the links about Oxytocin."
Then he is wrong. Under his own wikipedia source about oxytocins, it states that "The relationship between oxytocin and human sexual response is unclear" and "A more recent study of men found an increase in plasma oxytocin immediately after orgasm, but only in a portion of their sample that did not reach statistical significance. The authors noted that these changes "may simply reflect contractile properties on reproductive tissue."" Regardless...

"Monitering those increases is how we can scientifically tell that there is an emotional connection."
Sexual arousal does not equate emotional connectedness. This rebuttal has been negated.

"Apart from all that, my opponent has still not presented any arguments that I am not ready for a relationship."
Extend my previous arguments, as my opponent has not adequately touched them.


My opponent is ignoring the fact that, in a debate such as this, the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative, the person making the positive claim[1][2][3][4][5]. It is his job to prove that he is indeed ready for a relationship. All I have to do is prove that he hasn’t made his case, which he has not.

Since my opponent is making the distinction between love and emotional connectedness, then perhaps my opponent does not love his wife. But if he believes that love and emotional connectedness are then I am not creating a straw man. Regardless, whether or not my opponent loves his wife, I have shown that he has not proved to himself that he has an emotional connection to his wife. My position has consistently been this:

1) Only my opponent can know if he is ready for a relationship. This knowledge is an imperative requirement to have if one is to be in a relationship. If one does not have it, one is not ready.
2) There are several points he can lay out to let himself know.
3) He has attempted to demonstrate these points to us.
4) He believes these points to be valid.
5) However, I’ve shown these points to be invalid. From 4
6) Thus, these are not proofs to us or him. From 2, 3, 4
7) He has proved nothing to himself.
8) My opponent does not know that he is ready for a relationship and is therefore not ready to be in one.

We see that my opponent has actually tricked himself into believing that he has an emotional connectedness to his wife. What he has is not an emotional connectedness. It is something that he believes is emotional conenctedness, but is not. Of course, this trick is not enough to provide the emotional connectedness that my opponent feels that he has, and thus has no real reason to be in a relationship with his pregnant wife because he is not ready for one.

Thank you and I thank my opponent for the debate.

[1] Fallacy: The Burden of Proof: http://www.nizkor.org...
[4] Important terms in Lincoln-Douglas debate: http://debate-central.ncpa.org...
[5] Answer bag, The Burden of Proof: http://www.answerbag.com...
False Signals Cause Misleading Brain Scans:http://www.npr.org......
Oxytocins: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Lie: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ore_Ele

Pro

"My opponent is ignoring the fact that, in a debate such as this, the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative..."

Agreed, and it is my opponent that has made the affirmative claim in round 1, saying, "I will argue that my opponent is not ready to be in a relationship."

I will briefly go over my opponent's final points without adding more arguments (since that would not be fair to add arguments in the final round.

"Perhaps the eyes aren't always "relibale enough" and may not give us the information we seek."

Agreed, eyes are not 100% accurate, however they are still trustworthy sources of info.

"My opponent merely read the bullet points at the beginning of post 3 and left it at that. If he had read further into the posts, instead of just winging it, he may have been attacking my substancial expound, which correlates to point 3 but is much more complex. But he did not. Extend my points."

This is false, since the arguments only attacked that the machines are not 100% reliable, however, that can be up to the voters to decide.

"And fMRI machines can give off bad signals and misleading scans. They are not as reliable as he believes and may not give his the information he seeks"

Strawman, I never gave a degree of accuracy, nor denied that they can sometimes be wrong. This still, in no way, indicates that I'm not ready for a relationship.

"fMRI's scan for both brain activity and chemical balances, since chemical balance create brain activity, so my objection still stands. His does not."

False. fMRI's scan the change in blood flow in the brain, nothing else. It does not test the chemical make-up of that blood, it does not test what hormones are being released, or any of that. [1] This info is coming from one of his own sources.

"Then he is wrong. Under his own wikipedia source about oxytocins..." (this entire section)

My opponent cherry picked the studies. Over half a dozen studies were shown, and he skipped them and showed the one. However, everyone should look at that particular study, and not the wiki sentence about it. It is here [2]. I won't make any interpretations on it, just encourage everyone to look at it, particularly page 61. We also have, from that same wiki, and study, which looked at many different researches on Oxytocin [3].

"Sexual arousal does not equate emotional connectedness."

Another strawman argument. At no point did I say that sexual arousal equals emotional connectedness. Sex releases Oxytocin which is linked to emtional contectedness.

"Since my opponent is making the distinction between love and emotional connectedness, then perhaps my opponent does not love his wife."

I'm sure that everyone can see that this is a fallacy. There is also a distinction between football and baseball, but I can still engage in both sports.

My opponent makes one final claim.

"We see that my opponent has actually tricked himself into believing that he has an emotional connectedness to his wife. What he has is not an emotional connectedness. It is something that he believes is emotional conenctedness, but is not."

I encourage every reader and voter to go look for any argument which my opponent provided that indicates that any of this is true. I will not provide an argument against it because this is the last round. I will simply encourage everyone to check for any evidence what-so-ever that backs this up.

All in all, the claim that my opponent made in R1, "my opponent is not ready to be in a relationship," has not once been shown to be even close to true.

Thank you, and have a wonderful weekend.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org...
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ilovedebate 6 years ago
ilovedebate
taking relationships to a whole 'nother level eh? haha good debate guys!
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Excellent exchange.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
LOL! Best debate ever
Posted by Phoenix_Reaper 6 years ago
Phoenix_Reaper
I learned early to not debate OreEle
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
jar2187Ore_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had BOP which he did not meet
Vote Placed by detachment345 6 years ago
detachment345
jar2187Ore_EleTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't really prove that Pro was not ready to be in a relationship
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
jar2187Ore_EleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an excellent exchange, solid evidence by OreEle, and very creative argument by jar2187,a new member who brings a lot to DDO. I would give this 3:2 to OreEle simply because Con was more on the defense and was not fully asserting that OreEle was not ready but disproving his claims, the BoP ran the other way. Enjoyable exchange and excellent performance by both.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
jar2187Ore_EleTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not even remotely meet his BOP. He has played the "My opponent cannot prove I am wrong therefore I am right" card and it just doesn't fly.
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
jar2187Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel like OreEle won because he had the advantage of knowing himself. Funny debate.