It's okay for men to cheat but not women
Debate Rounds (4)
R4: Conclusion - no new arguments or new sources
Please only accept if you have an argument
Good luck Con
I, Con, will argue that it would be okay for women, but not men, to cheat in relationships.
In an ideal world a man meets a woman, they both fall in love and thus never need anyone else (other than friends and family). However we live in a world full of feminists and feminist supporters i.e. hate filled people who waste men's time seeking low goals.
My argument is split into two parts
1. It is okay for men to cheat
2. It is not okay for women to cheat.
1. Women who cheat are scumbags, whores, or whatever name you want to call them. They certainly are not worthy of respect because they abuse their power - it doesn't matter if a woman is fat, shy, or horrible she can have sex with pretty much any guy she likes within 5 minutes, it requires her zero effort. So, when women cheat they want to hurt their boyfriend maybe not right away but at least when they are dumped, and they obviously do not care about having a relationship with the other guy otherwise they'd end the relationship first instead of cheating. Men who cheat might not have such opportunity again. There is pressure on men to be good at sex because they might not want to lose their girlfriend and they may just want to please her. Other guys can respect a man who cheats, and that's not because they hate women.
2. In an ideal world of course it would be best for men to end a relationship before starting a new one, and find a woman they love and want to spend their life with. Unfortunately, when a man does end a relationship because he doesn't feel it is working, women make that man feel socially low value, they say things like "all the good guys are taken, there is a reason why men are single and nobody wants them". Women actually believe a man who cheats is better than one who doesn't since a man who cheats must have something good going for them. Men feel degraded by being single, and not just by women either. When a man is in a failing relationship and a once in a lifetime opportunity exists, should he take it and potentially be happy forever? Or should he miss out, try but fail at breaking up gently, and then feel like rubbish for doing the right thing according to women.
It is difficult for men to end a relationship for many reasons, one is that they are ending a friendship too. A lot of men feel they have to tell women they are gay or something similar as it tends to work out better if a woman loses interest in them opposed to themself losing interest. Ending a relationship by cheating on a woman is far less painful for a woman than ending it due to not seeing a future together as a result of lacking strength to cope with her depression etc. Cheating makes it much easier for a woman to move on, meaning she is likelier to be a friend, and creates a greater chance of being back together when things do change, because cheating is only a mistake.
I look forward to Con's argument
I just want to point out that my opponent's first round was less grammatically correct than my first round.
Now allow me to present my arguments.
My argument, is coincidentally split into two parts:
1) It is okay for women to cheat on men but not for men to cheat on women.
2) Parte dos.
1) All the good guys are taken. There is a reason why men are single and no body wants them.
Did I just quote my opponent's quote? Yes. Why? To answer this, I would like to direct your attention to the top right of this argument. Here I have presented the song "Sister Suffragette" from Walt Disney's Mary Poppins . In this song there is line that says we love men individually, but as a group, they're just stupid.
Is this true? Let me ask you another question. Is lawn mower racing still a thing?
The answer to both is the same: yes.
So what, Jonelle? What does that have to do with this debate? Aren't you just using strawmen and red herrings to respond to this other ridiculous argument?
I'm just trying to let you all understand what kind of ideas men have. Men have the weird terrible ideas just to create more competitions. Everything is about "mind is bigger than yours," "my girlfriend is hotter than yours," "I'm f***ing like 18 girls right now, and I'm in three committed relationships." All of it is just this weird competition to impress other shallow guys. In the end, what we really need is people who cheat because they can love more than one person at the same time.
Women are notorious for being able to think about more than sex. For some reason men hate that we think about more than sex. You know why? Because men are always thristy, and they don't want a lifelong partner. They want a lifelong, life-like, perfect-for-my-tastes, interactive sex toy.
When a woman cheats, it's because she knows that her partner isn't meeting her emotional needs, and just getting another guy is a way more reasonable than talking about it with a guy who's jacking off to pictures he took of you while you were asleep.
Anyway, that pretty much concludes my thoughts on the matter. I'll go ahead and expand later in the rebuttals.
2) Parte dos. That's Spanish for "part 2."
Part two is me responding to what my opponent said.
It was all either untrue
I'm just gonna bullet this:
Thank you for reading. I look forward to what my opponent has to say about that.
Note to voters: Arguments are not counted in the comment section, however in the comment section Con claims to want to troll this debate. It is a shame, I did want to have a proper debate, of course I won't be now, I did plan on showing sources and going into a lot more depth but since my opponent has accepted even though she lacks the interest and any argument, there is simply no point really.
You only have to look at her sources to realize she wants to waste everyone's time, which feminists do. Her video is a joke, it shows an actor saying a line which the actor was paid to say, and for some reason Con believes this supports her argument. Then her second source is equally stupid, it is just "women". A woman's word can't be trusted anyway.
Cons says "what we really need is people who cheat because they can love more than one person at the same time." She doesn't realize that if someone loves someone they 1. wouldn't cheat or keep another relationship secret , and 2. they can't love someone when they are already in a relationship and intimate with someone else.
Men don't think about sex as often as you think, we men have plenty of sport, hobbies, projects, etc which pre-occupy our minds. Women force their disgusting belief on others about men to degrade (simplify) men. It is no wonder men cheat, there are not many quality women. Most men do want a lifelong partner, there is no point debating this as it is irrelevant.. When men want to be in a relationship it is not because they want to cheat or hurt a woman, it is because men want it to work unlike women who enter a relationship expecting or hoping it will work. So when a man cheats we should ask 'was the woman worthy of the man's loyalty?'
If a man doesn't meet a woman's 'emotional needs' why can't she just tell him and be honest? There is no reason not to, unless of course the woman did not love him to begin with. It is not reasonable for a woman to cheat. And why would you have a relationship with a guy who takes pictures of you while you sleep?
I have no idea how any of Con's points attacked my own. So my points stand.
In part two of her round, she states "Relationships don't work if the man is cheating". I explained how relationships can work when a man cheats e.g. a man can better express his love. My point was not challenged, neither was any actually. A man may think a woman is too good for him even when she tells him she loves him, I know from experience. When he thinks he is too good for his girlfriend he may talk to other women, he doesn't have to lie in order to cheat though.
According to Con when women cheat it is natural selection of man. My reply to that is cheating and dating are two different things
It doesn't matter whether women prefer honesty or not, when you end a relationship with a woman it doesn't end well especially if a man tries is best not to hurt her feelings. It is always better to hurt her feelings and move on with your life than let a woman who you have lost feelings for hold you back from finding true happiness.
Con says 'cheating is definitely' which makes no sense and don't know how that means I've lost my case. I certainly have not admitted defeat. I know what the debate is, I was the one who created it!!
Men can be forgiven for cheating BUT women can't because when women cheat it is to cause pain to themself and others whereas when men cheat they seek a high goal. Also, when men are degraded you can expect them to make poor choices.
Thanks for reading
My apologies for misunderstanding the purpose of this debate.
I read through my opponent's constructive in the last debate he did like this, and I thought, "There's no way that he's actually that sexist. It's gotta be a joke. Especially with all those nasty words he's using."
However, apparently this is a genuine belief of my opponent. For that, I also am sorry.
To be clear about this debate, my opponent never discussed BOP (burden of proof) which means we're using standard BOP. My opponent's burden is to prove why his side is correct. Because he is attempting to prove that something is true despite its conradiction to culturally accepted ethical norms. My job is simpyl to cast enough doubt on his side to make you believe it is not correct. Of course, I presented a counter statement, but my job as con isn't necessarily to prove that counter statement. My job is just to put significant enough doubt in your mind that you believe that pro is probably wrong.
In other words: pro must provide proof that he's right.
If you read through is case, he says a lot of things. He makes a lot of claims. He says a lot of things are true universally, as if there are no exceptions to said claims. However, none of it is upheld. I can just as easily say that I am Morgan Freeman (which would be blasphemnous; I'm a mere prophet), but that doesn't make it true. I would have to send some form of proof for you to accept that as true. Otherwise you're just like, "oh yeah, there goes that internet troll, Jonelle, again." However, my opponent doesn't prove any of this.
And even if he proved any of his statements, it still wouldn't uphold his case for the following reason:
This here is the important part. Read the part after this big text for your voting material.
My opponent's goal is to prove the statement: "It is okay for men to cheat but not women."
For something to be okay, it must at least be morally acceptable behavior. This means it's not necessarily a good thing, but it's not wrong either. It's not a mistake.
However, my opponent clearly makes the statement: cheating is a mistake.
So if cheating is a mistake, then why is it okay? Or are mistakes morally acceptable? My opponent hasn't made this clear, and since he ignored this in the last round it's a dropped point. He can't bring up any new points according to his own rules.
He also cannot bring in any new evidence to support his side.
I can basically end the debate right here with a summary of why my opponent loses:
1) He did not uphold the burden of proof. He didn't prove a single statement he made. To say something is not to prove it. Not even his reasoning is sound enough to be proof. His entire case hinges on a conglomerate of unproven statements.
2) He clearly say that cheating is a mistake. He never explained why it is still okay even though it's a mistake. He didn't define okay or mistake, so we must operate under the normal definitions of each one of those words. In this case, we find them to be contradictory.
3) He may not present any new arguments or new sources in the last round according to his own rules. For my last round, I will most likely just copy and past this and expand a little bit on each point. But essentially, his entire case is unproven and cannot be deemed true.
Basically: thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Oh and this whole debate just proves that thing I quoted from the Mary Poppin's video. Just saying.
I am very disappointed with my opponent from the beginning to the end. Not only has she been rude she has put no effort into this debate. I made it clear that Con should only accept if they have an argument. This is why I have not bothered to use sources or go into the amount of depth I initially wanted to.
Let's examine what Con's main arguments are:
1. It is not okay for men to cheat because men can't love more than one person at the same time
- I proved women who cheat can't love someone either. None of her comments challenged my reasons for why it is okay for men to cheat. Does she think a man is supposed to know who he loves and not try to find this out? A man should not care about the feelings of a woman he does not or no longer loves. When men cheat it is not because they intend to hurt a woman, they wanted the relationship to work, the reason he cheated is down to whether she is worthy of his loyalty! There is pressure on men to meet women's emotional needs i.e. make them happy (be good in bed), so men will practice with other women, thus relationships can work if men cheat. Men should not miss an opportunity to be happy, it may be the last time. Why should men try their best to break up softly and feel rubbish for doing so? It is different for women because they can form a relationship with anyone they choose in minutes.
Con says I have said "cheating is a mistake" and claims I have not explained why it is still okay to cheat even though I have. I've said in the beginning that an ideal world does not involve cheating, and that we do not live in an ideal world.
2. Con believes it is okay for women to cheat if a man doesn't meet her emotional needs
- I proved this to be a stupid excuse for cheating, why not just tell the man you chose to be in a relationship with how you feel? Afterall men want a relationship to work, obviously. If women do this then clearly they are not worthy of a man's loyalty.
There is probably more points I made but these sum up everything well. I still have no clue how we are supposed to believe what a paid actress says on television to be true.
Con accuses me of being sexist which I am not, and thinks she knows my genuine beliefs for some reason. Clearly she deserves to lose points for misconduct. It is clear she has attempted to simplify me, like feminists do to express hatred. I did not discuss BOP because it is just as easy for you as it is for me to prove whether something is acceptable, if you didn't know why not ask rather than try to create a new argument about BOP? Con tries to say at the very last moment that I have the burden of proof and that all she has to do is cast a tiny bit of doubt. This is complete nonsense.
In order for Con to win she must put together a stronger argument. It is not a matter of whether I change voters minds like she says.
Thank you for reading, and don't forget to vote Pro!
Alright, let's get back to the real world (it's okay to dock me conduct points for that if you wish. I'm confident I have argument points).
My opponent believes that he has proven things. One must prove things with sources when making a claim that goes against societal beliefs. In order to prove a statement like that, you have to actually prove the statement. My opponent offers statements as fact that are not proven to be fact. Because he did not prove them to be fact, he cannot win.
In case my opponent forgot, I did actually come in with some arguments. They had about as much merit as his.
He shouldnt' wait for his opponent to attack his ludicrous claims, he should prove they're not ludicrous up front. Instead, he didn't post a single source, or site any sort of evidence other than his personal opinion of the way things are.
My opponent also claims that his proof for why cheating can be a mistake and okay is because we don't live in an ideal world. However, the type of world we live in makes no difference in moral principles. If something is wrong then it's wrong. My opponent has not proven why anything other than that should be the case.
Why BOP matters: because as far as I know, no one actually believes this. It's not up to me to completely shut down an argument that society has already shut down. My opponent's job is to give it merit or credibility. It's not nonsense. It's just a fact. My opponent has proven literally nothing, and because he's proven nothing, we must agree with the popular belief by default. That's how challenging a social norm works.
To be clear: I do not have to put together a stronger argument than my opponent if my opponent has not proven anything. At the point that my opponent proves something, I would be required to disprove it. If my opponent hasn't proven anything, I'm out a job.
Poor me. I'm jobless.
My opponent asked a question in the last round, and I'm going to answer it. If my opponent comments that this is a new argument, disregard everything within the lines. If he does not comment that this is a new argument, please consider this as valid for the debate.
My opponent asks why can't the woman just be honest about her feelings and tell the man how she feels? Just be straight forward right? Don't try to go behind his back just because you feel like the relationship isn't successful. Don't lie or be dishonest to him. Don't be disloyal.
Just flip the gender of the pronouns, and I present the same question to my opponent. A good relationship doesn't need the existence of a third person teaching the man how to perform a very sexually intimate act. Be honest if it isn't working out. Break up if it becomes necessary.
Anyway, aside from that, just keep in mind a couple things:
To say something is not to prove it. Making a claim or statement without evidence is regarded as personal opinion, which does not win a debate.
To argue against social norms requires that one proves their side. If he can't prove that everyone else is wrong, then why should we believe him? Just take his word for it that we're all wrong and he's right?
I don't have to disprove an opponent who has not proven anything.
Yes, this entire debate was essentially worthless. Because of that, I ask you to either vote for me because my opponent didn't win or to just not vote at all.
If you read this far into the debate, I commend you. Thank you for your time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Philosophy123 2 weeks 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:||2||0|
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments are both good but Con claims that she will troll the debate and also mistakenly questions pros grammar
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.