The Instigator
OtakuJordan
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

Men are always hungry for sex

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 8 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,944 times Debate No: 49211
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (97)
Votes (8)

 

OtakuJordan

Con

Zaroette (formerly known as Caploxion) recently posted the following statement in a forums thread titled "Rape" (http://www.debate.org...):

"Men are always hungry for sex. If you get into a relationship, you're an idiot if you're not expecting him to want sex, especially if he treats you very well. If you feel like you're getting raped, then suggest some ways in which he can help you both enjoy the experience, instead of complaining. It's not like sex can't be enjoyable, in fact, if you're in a relationship, it should be, or else you're probably going to be miserable."

She failed to properly defend this misogynistic generalization with evidence of any kind, insisting that her claim is logical and needs no proof. I am hereby challenging her to defend the "logic" that is so apparent to her and yet not to any other member of the site.

The first round may be used for either acceptance or construction.

Also, no insults, please. Try to avoid using such classic Caplox-isms as "It is safe to say that you're a f*ckwit that has sex with rams and goats for the fun of it. This comes from your traumatic experience during your younger years, wherein your dad came into your bedroom at night and fingered you."
Zarroette

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
OtakuJordan

Con

Thank you for accepting.

The major problem with my opponent's argument is that it is absolutist in nature, claiming that all men want sex all the time. My opponent does not have the necessary knowledge to make such a claim. This is not because she is not a male, as some in the forums claimed. It is because she is not privy to the collective consciousness of humanity. If even one of age male does not desire sexual pleasure at all times her argument fails.

In an article in the Huffington Post titled "Sex Confessions: 13 Women Who Want Sex More Than Their Male Partners Share Their Stories," a respondant stated:

I've been married 5 years to a man that's 12 years older than me (he's 40, I'm 28) and sex has nearly always been an issue ... At first I thought it was my orgasm issues, then I thought it was his anti-anxiety meds, but he's been off those for over a year and there's been no change. I'm not sure how quickly we got here, but for at least the past few years I'm lucky to get lucky twice a month. And that's with begging. BEGGING. My husband has nearly no interest, does not notice if I'm naked, states he doesn't ever think about sex, refuses to see this as a legitimate problem, and if I'm to try to get him there, there is a laundry list of factors that have to be aligned for him: tired? work stress? comfy bedding? smelly breath? kids distracted?

There is no pornography issue, he's only had three sexual partners in his life, he's fantastic at sex, says I'm very satisfying -- but he only needs to be satisfied once a month. Even when we were separated for 6 weeks (job move) and reunited, I had to ask for it. But he was tired ... So I do my best to trust in a higher power and purpose and not feel despair at the very real thought that by the time I'm 35, I may never have sex again.[1]


But let us put this testimonial aside for a moment. It is impossible to find out whether or not every single man on the face of planet earth constantly desires sex, and because she has the burden of proof her argument therefore fails.

My opponent has tried to argue that because evolution favors organisms that desire sex, it is natural and obvious that men must desire sex all the time. However, this argument is flawed on two counts.

1. Women with strong reproductive desires are also favored by evolution, so by Pro's logic all women should desire sex all the time, a claim she has not made.

2. Aberrations of evolution exist. Although a certain trait may be favored, that trait will not always appear in members of the species.

I will close by pointing out that asexuals, men and women who have no sexual desires, exist.[2] My opponent seems to be unaware of this. This alone destroys her argument.

Sources
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
2. http://www.asexuality.org...
Zarroette

Pro


I thank Jordan for the opportunity to defend what I wrote. I hope that I will be able to adequately show you that I what I said wasn’t ridiculous at all, in fact it was correct.



What am I talking about?


"Men are always hungry for sex. If you get into a relationship, you're an idiot if you're not expecting him to want sex, especially if he treats you very well. If you feel like you're getting raped, then suggest some ways in which he can help you both enjoy the experience, instead of complaining. It's not like sex can't be enjoyable, in fact, if you're in a relationship, it should be, or else you're probably going to be miserable."



What I mean by, “men are always hungry for sex”, is that there is an inert desire, in all men, to have sex. I am not saying that men can only think about sex, or that men are rapists, or whatever else was said in that stupid thread. This inert desire does not always translate to the surface, hence men aren’t always thinking about sex, but the inert desire is still there.



The 24th comment in the thread in question [3], which was my comment, demonstrates exactly what I meant:


“At the subconscious level, you absolutely do want sex all the time. You'll convince yourself otherwise, via thoughts or social pressures.”



The 30th comment (also mine) begins with this:


“Subconsciously, you do want sex all the time!”



Clearly, there is incredibly damning evidence to suggest that I am talking about the subconscious desire for sex, not anything else.



At the inert core


When I talk of wanting sex all the time, I refer to the inert drive within the subconscious human psychology, which can be referred to as the “id”. According to Sigmund Freud, “the id is the personality component made up of unconscious psychic energy that works to satisfy basic urges, needs, and desires” [5]. The id wants its goals to be immediately directly and fulfilled [10].


The subconscious actively works to fulfil all of our urges, in one way or another. Furthermore, “the libido is part of the id and is the driving force of all behavior” [6] [7]. So, libido, according to Freud, refers to the instinctive drive for sex, which is subconscious [8].


Since:


1) The id (subconscious mind) does not switch off (unless you die)


2) The id works to satisfy basic urges


3) The libido is part of the id


4) The libido doesn’t switch off


We conclude that men always want sex, at the inert level. This is not to say that men always want sex, at the conscious level…



Surface filtering


I am not arguing that men always want sex, in terms of conscious desire. There are many, surface factors, in relation to the very core desire, that are capable of overriding this core factor. According to the Freud’s “pleasure principle” [6] [7], it is the driving force of the id. Since the id cannot orchestrate for all inert desires to be met constantly, some pleasures are placed up the hierarchy to be met immediately, whilst others, like the sexual drive from libido, can sometimes be delayed.


There are many reasons why someone might not feel like having sex (i.e. libido lessens). Depression, stress, illness, medication etc., are examples of affect that can stunt your desire for sex [1], on the surface. But feeling like having sex, and inertly wanting sex, are different. My comments pertained to the inert, as I used the word “subconscious”.



Evolution and sexual desire


In the past, the males who were actively seeking sexual intercourse, were the ones most likely to pass on their genes. So, if we understand this through the theory of evolution, a desire to have sex was one trait that was likely to be preserved. The males passing on genes, thereby continuing the human race, were the ones wanting to have sex. Makes sense, right?


So, via natural selection, the desire to have sex was preserved in human psychology. Furthermore, “with sexual reproduction, natural selection acts upon individual genetic traits” [4]. Again, since the ones wanting sex were the ones reproducing, sexual desire became an inert genetic trait, as well as a preferable trait.


Sexual desire is further demonstrated to be in genetics, through research conducted by Zion et al, which showed that there were slight variations in sexual-arousal, based on genes [11].


So, via evolution, a desire for sex is part of genetics, in regards to the male psychology; males are always ‘hungry for sex’.



Counter-arguments


“The major problem with my opponent's argument is that it is absolutist in nature, claiming that all men want sex all the time. My opponent does not have the necessary knowledge to make such a claim.”


Well, this is amusing. My opponent said that people can’t claim things in such an “absolutist” way, and then claims something in an absolutist way. Clearly, there a contradiction in my opponent’s logic. So, which one is it, Jordan?



“Women with strong reproductive desires are also favored by evolution, so by Pro's logic all women should desire sex all the time, a claim she has not made.”


This argument is irrelevant to this debate. We are not discussing the sex drive of women; we are, however, discussing whether men are “always hungry for sex”.



“Aberrations of evolution exist. Although a certain trait may be favored, that trait will not always appear in members of the species.”


My opponent fails to provide any evidence of this, other than citing the definition of ‘asexual’ from a wiki page. He is to provide evidence that this type of sexual orientation exists, or else he drops this argument.



My opponent’s already poor conduct


During the first round, my opponent quoted me irrelevantly, in regards to this debate, suggesting that a “Classic Caplox-isms” involves swearing profusely and vulgarly. His conduct involves a fallacy, which is called ‘poisoning the well’ [9]. No context for the quote was given, either. My quote has nothing to do with the resolution, and my opponent has used it in order to discredit my character. He should immediately lose the conduct point, due to this.



References and Sources


[1] http://www.health24.com...


[2] Regan, P.C.; Atkins, L. (2006). "Sex Differences and Similarities in Frequency and Intensity of Sexual Desire". Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal 34 (1): 95–101


[3] http://www.debate.org...


[4] http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net...


[5] http://psychology.about.com...


[6] Freud, S. (1922). Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego.


[7] Freud, S. (1956). On Sexuality. Penguin Books Ltd.


[8] Freud, S. (1920) .A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis.


[9] http://rationalwiki.org...


[10]http://www.a2zpsychology.com...


[11] Zion Ben I.Z, et al. (2006). Mol. Psychiatry, published online


Debate Round No. 2
OtakuJordan

Con

I thank my opponent for what is in fact a very cogent, albeit weakly supported, reply.

On the topic of discussion
My opponent has admitted more or less that, for all intents and purposes, men do not desire sex all the time. She now states that they have an "inert desire" for sex which may or may not be manifest in their outward behavior. One could easily question that this was Pro's original meaning.

Her statement, quoted in the first round, said that women getting into a relationship with a man were "idiots" if they did not expect the man to pressure them for sex to the point where they may feel as if they are being "raped" (i.e., outward behavior). It was not until the absurdity of her claim was aggressively attacked that she backpedaled and stated that a man's alleged constant desire for sex is subconscious.[1]

She did not respond to my assertion that, by her own logic, women should also desire sex all the time. My opponent is correct in saying that women's sex drives are not the topic of debate here, however one must wonder what meaning her original comment has if she believes that women and men both have a constant subconscious desire for sex.

Also, one may consider that Pro accepted this debate when no such nuances of conscious or subconscious desire were provided in the first round or the resolution and offered no such nuances until I had attacked her argument in R2. By anyone's rules of debate, she is required to argue the resolution, not her statements in a forum thread. However, I think it is only sportsmanlike to allow her to defend her now abridged statements since she has been brave enough to back down from her original misogynistic position, as getting her to do so was the purpose of this debate challenge to begin with.

On "poisoning the well"
Given that my opponent has frequently attacked other members, both in debates and forum threads, I felt it was quite reasonable to ask that she refrain from such behavior in this debate. Also, given her tendency to attack members and then justify the attack I felt I needed to provide an example of exactly what I expect her to refrain from.

On the existence of asexuality as a sexual orientation
My opponent dismissed the existence of asexuals by stating that my source is merely a "wiki page." It is bad sportsmanship to dismiss an argument based on source alone, to say the least. In order for the counter-argument to be valid, the debater must show why the source is not only suspect but invalid or incorrect. That being said, allow me to present some other sources proving the existence of asexuals for the satisfaction of my opponent.

In a paper published by the respected Kinsey Institute titled "Asexuality: Classification and Characterization," researchers Nicole Prause and Cynthia Graham stated that,

Asexuals were most clearly distinguished from non-asexuals by their lower/absent scores on the Dyadic Sexual Desire subscale, lower scores on the Solitary Sexual Desire subscale, and lower scores on the Sexual Arousability Scale.[2]

In the journal Sexualities, Kristin Scherrer published a paper titled "Coming to an Asexual Identity: Negotiating Identity, Negotiating Desire" which documents asexuality and the behavior it engenders. The paper drew upon the experience of 102 self-identified asexuals.[3]

On Freudian theory
I find it somewhat amusing that although my opponent's argument rests on the unproven and highly contested psychoanalytical models of Sigmund Freud she challenges the existence of asexuals, a well-documented phenomenon. One must admit that this is somewhat ironic.

Freud's model of psychoanalysis is unproven[4] and is in competition with contradictory and more modern models, such as conflict theory, ego psychology and object relations theory.[5]

Because Freud's beliefs in this area are unsubstantiated, they may not be used to substantiate another claim as my opponent has done. Unless my opponent can provide some sort of evidence or argument as to why the Freudian model of psychoanalysis should be favored over other models, she has not presented an argument for her claim but merely a simple presentation of Freud's beliefs.

On absolutism
In her R2 speech, my opponent stated,

“The major problem with my opponent's argument is that it is absolutist in nature, claiming that all men want sex all the time. My opponent does not have the necessary knowledge to make such a claim.”

Well, this is amusing. My opponent said that people can’t claim things in such an “absolutist” way, and then claims something in an absolutist way. Clearly, there a contradiction in my opponent’s logic. So, which one is it, Jordan?

An absolute claim is only problematic if it requires absolute knowledge. I do not need such knowledge to know that my opponent does not possess it.

I look forward to Pro's rebuttal.

Sources
1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://www.kinseyinstitute.org...
3. http://sexualities.sagepub.com...
4. https://www.boundless.com...
5. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
Zarroette

Pro

I thank Jordan for his improved arguments.

*Sorry for the random underlinings and ad-writing. There's adward on this comp, and I can't get rid of it.

Counter-arguments

On the topic of discussion
“My opponent has admitted more or less that, for all intents and purposes, men do not desire sex all the time.

My opponent is playing word games. The title of the resolution is there for everyone to see. I’ve made it abundantly clear what I meant by my claim, and why it is consistent with the resolution.

“One could easily question that this was Pro's original meaning.”

I have quoted from that thread, specifically stating what I meant – I even used the word “subconscious”. Besides, my opponent is digressing onto what he perceives to be my argument in the past, rather than addressing my arguments here. I only have to defend my arguments here, in order to win the debate.



“Her statement, quoted in the first round, said that women getting into a relationship with a man were "idiots" if they did not expect the man to pressure them for sex to the point where they may feel as if they are being "raped" (i.e., outward behavior). It was not until the absurdity of her claim was aggressively attacked that she backpedaled and stated that a man's alleged constant desire for sex is subconscious.”

This whole paragraph is irrelevant, as it is my opponent’s interpretation of what I said in the thread (which isn’t accurate, but who cares? It’s not relevant to this debate). Again, I’ve made my argument here, in this debate, very clear.


“She did not respond to my assertion that, by her own logic, women should also desire sex all the time…”

My opponent is incessantly side-tracked with irrelevancies. We are debating whether MEN are hungry for sex all the time, not women.



“However, I think it is only sportsmanlike to allow her to defend her now abridged statements…”

No, can you please stick to the resolution’s topic?


On "poisoning the well"

My opponent had no reason to directly quote me, in order to remind of debate etiquette. Not only is the quote out of context, but it isn’t even related to the debate. Again, he could have simply put in the rules, ‘I remind my opponent not to personally attack me”.

Of course, in his reminder to me to not attack him, he’s attacked me in the process, by making me out to be someone who is vicious/hateful/malicious etc. Not only is this poor conduct and fallacious, but it is also hypocritical.



On the existence of asexuality as a sexual orientation by CoupondropDown" href="../../Men-are-always-hungry-for-sex/1/">

“My opponent dismissed the existence of asexuals by stating that my source is merely a "wiki page."”

Lies. I dismissed it as merely a single definition, FROM a wiki page. It would be like me arguing dragons exist because there’s a definition for them.

“In order for the counter-argument to be valid, the debater mustshow why the source is not only suspect but invalid or incorrect.

WRONG. That’s a negative proof fallacy -- it’s up to the one claiming to prove the source to be valid. That’s YOUR job, Jordan.


“Asexuals were most clearly distinguished from non-asexuals by their lower/absent scores on the Dyadic Sexual Desire subscale, lower scores on the Solitary Sexual Desire subscale, and lower scores on the Sexual Arousability
by CoupondropDown" href="../../Men-are-always-hungry-for-sex/1/">Scale.

“In the journal Sexualities, Kristin Scherrer published a paper titled "Coming to an Asexual Identity: Negotiating Identity, Negotiating Desire" which documents asexuality and the behavior it engenders. The paper drew upon the experience of 102 self-identified asexuals.”

I had a look at these reports, and these tests involved asking people questions about their sexuality, rather than scientifically testing anything. It would be like asking someone whether they felt like they had a soul; there’s just no way he/she could know. Sure, people have varying libidos, there’s no question about that; and yes, someone could easily be cognizant of varying libido. But how could you ever be sure that you’re asexual? How could someone be sure that there is absolutely NO attraction to anything, whatsoever, rather than just very, very low attraction?

I think that someone’s libido could get so low, that on the surface, you don’t feel like having sex. Freud’s work is consistent with this, and since these works are based on people’s interpretation of feelings, I think Freud’s work is more convincing, don’t you?



On Freudian theory
“I find it somewhat amusing that although my opponent's argument rests on the unproven and highly contested psychoanalytical models of Sigmund Freud”

Sigmund Freud’s work is still very much relevant today:

“There are still thousands of psychologists that guide their work by this paradigm, and there are thousands that use the projective tests, including: TAT, the RISP and the Rorschach test” [1].

“In many European countries … Freudian (and other derivative models of) psychoanalysis continue to enjoy widespread credibility and practice” [4].

“Freud's ideas have been highly important to literary criticism” [4].

“psychoanalysis … still considered to be a credible and effective method of treating mental illnesses” [5].


Freud's model of psychoanalysis is unproven

By what standard of proof? Which part are you even referring to from your reference, Jordan? This assertion, backed by an unexplained reference, acts poorly as an argument.

[Freud’s model] is in competition with contradictory and more modern models, such as conflict theory, ego psychology and object relations theory.

Firstly, my opponent has failed to express how modern theories contradict Freud’s. He references an article that supposedly critiques Freud’s work, yet my opponent fails to explain why these critiques are relevant to this debate.

Secondly, Freud’s models aren’t entirely contradictory with more modern models. There are aspects, funnily enough, that remain consistent in both, to a large extent. Sexual urges develop subconsciously (although, they can manifest in the conscious mind) through puberty [3]. All models either agree on this point, or say nothing to the contrary.

Due to character limits, I’m only going to run through why one of the theories, suggested by my opponent (besides, my opponent hasn’t explained why any contradict), does not contradict Freud’s theories:

Conflict theory “posits unconscious and conscious conflict among wishes (dependent, controlling, sexual, and aggressive)” [2]. With this in mind, since Conflict theory talks of unconscious (subconscious) wishes. Furthermore, there isn’t any evidence, demonstrated via Conflict theory that suggests sexual desire cannot always lay inert, albeit lessened, on occasions. This does not, if you’ll forgive me, conflict with Freud’s work, in regards to the subconscious desire for sex. The underlying sexual element, as expressed in Freud’s work, is consistent with Conflict Theory!


On absolutism

“An absolute claim is only problematic if it requires absolute knowledge. I do not need such knowledge to know that my opponent does not possess it.”

How could my opponent possibly determine this? In saying that I can’t make absolute claims, my opponent is making an absolute claim. He says: “My opponent does not have the necessary knowledge to make such a claim.”

Clearly, the implications of his claim are exceedingly problematic. How could he ever reach such a conclusion? He hasn’t even given logical framework for his conclusion. He’s just merely asserted, in an absolute way, that he knows I don’t know.

References/Sources

[1] http://www.ibuzzle.com...

[2] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

[3] Plant, T.M. (2001). “Leptin, growth hormone, and the onset of primate puberty”. The Jornal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 86 (1)

[4] http://www.gradesaver.com...

[5] http://www.personalityresearch.org...

Debate Round No. 3
OtakuJordan

Con

OtakuJordan forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Pro

Well, it appears that my opponent has forfeited. However, in the event that his forfeit does not convince you that I’ve won, I’ll quickly explain why…



Firstly, I’ve seen a few comments, in the comments section, that seem off, considering the debate. My arguments here ARE NOT:

1) Men can’t control themselves

2) Men are always, consciously, wanting sex

3) Men are rapists

4) Men are unable to think of anything but sex

5) Sex drives do not vary, at all, and men are always raving for sex


All my round three arguments have been dropped. These include:


Irrelevant arguments

My opponent made several, irrelevant arguments, which included comments about the nature of women’s sexual drive, worrying about the original meaning of what I said (in the thread, which is not part of the debate) and comments on the rest of my quoted comment, which, largely, has very little to do with the debate.

Hopefully, even before his response, it should be abundantly clear that we’re debating whether “men are always hungry for sex”, rather than any of these irrelevant points of contention.

Poisoning the well

There was simply no need for that quote, at all. My opponent could have simply reminded me of the debate rules WITHOUT having the quote me out of context. It’s so obvious that he was trying to attack my character! Even if you don’t agree with this, he never responded to this particular criticism of his actions, and thus it should stand.


Asexuality

My opponent had two attempts at ‘proving’ the existence of asexuality.

The first one involved quoting a definition from a wiki-page. Again, as I have said, having a definition of ‘dragons’ does not prove that they exist.

The second one involved quoting research, of which involved asking people as to how they felt, and then performing elaborate calculations. I don’t think expressing feelings is substantial; is the Pope the messenger of God because people feel that he is? Besides, again, he opponent never responded to my criticisms, and so they should stand.


Freudian theory

My opponent, in the end, basically made unsubstantiated claims, such as ‘the theory is unproven’, or that it is contradicted by other models.

Firstly, I asked by what standard is the theory unproven. Evolution is still regarded as a theory, but that does not mean it’s without substantial evidence, right? Evolution is still ‘unproven’, but it’s widely accredited as being highly plausible. My opponent hasn’t elaborated on what he meant, therefore he really doesn’t have an argument, here.

Secondly, Freud’s model does not contradict the other models, in regards to the subconscious sexual drive aspect. I mean, my opponent doesn’t even begin to explain why any of these theories contradict, he merely asserts it.

Lastly, Freud is still used today, as I referenced earlier. If Freud’s theories are really as bad as my opponent is trying to make them out to be, then why are institutions using them? Why am I finding sources that say Freud’s work is credible, at least to some extent?

I’ve shown multiple instances where Freud’s work is still being used. Besides, and again, my opponent offers no counter-argument to this.


Absolutism

I’m just going to quote myself from the last round, because there isn’t much need to discuss this point:

“An absolute claim is only problematic if it requires absolute knowledge. I do not need such knowledge to know that my opponent does not possess it.”

‘How could my opponent possibly determine this? In saying that I can’t make absolute claims, my opponent is making an absolute claim. He says: “My opponent does not have the necessary knowledge to make such a claim.”

Clearly, the implications of his claim are exceedingly problematic. How could he ever reach such a conclusion? He hasn’t even given logical framework for his conclusion. He’s just merely asserted, in an absolute way, that he knows I don’t know.’


Concluding thoughts

I want to first thank Jordan for offering a chance to defend my argument, real than yell at each other in the forums. My comments were being misconstrued, and it’s great to have them fleshed-out so that everyone can see that I don’t hate men, or that I think all men are rapists.

I also wish to thank you, for reading whatever you read. If you’re a man, please understand that I don’t hate you. I don’t think that all men are berserk psychos that can’t control themselves, when it comes to women.

Anyway, thank you :)

Debate Round No. 4
97 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RedAnarchist 2 years ago
RedAnarchist
Zarroette is arguing for sexism, so many GGs are to be had.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Actually according to Freud babies do think about sex, particularly with their own mothers so that really wouldn't qualify as a rebuttal.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Dead men were once men; they're not anymore.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Baby boys =/= men. Saying that they are male does not suffice.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
I. Men are male
II. Baby boys are male
III. Baby boys know NOTHING about XXX, therefore they cannot have an inert desire to have XXX.
The argument is easily refuted. Don't know what happened to con.
Or, he could pretty much troll you by saying...
I. Dead men are men
II. Dead men's brains are dead and cannot think of anything or do anything
III. Men aren't always hungry for XXX becuz when they die they can't possibly have an inert desire for anything, since their brains are shut down....
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
Interesting debate.
Posted by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Zarroette, You touched my subconscious mind and I'm really hungry for sex now.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
I. I am a man
II. I am not hungry for sex
III. The resolution has been negated

Zarroette, come back :'(
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Oh, the other term that really sealed my vote was the term "Always".

Regardless of the strength of Innate Hunger (genetic or otherwise) the implication of always which means 24/7 for life, was not argued convincingly enough either.
Pro played the semantics of the term "Hungry", but neglected to find a reasonable explanation for the term "Always", regardless of the depth of the Hunger, even Inert Hunger (LOL) it never persists 24/7.

So it was actually a very poor argument.
Con did not have to do much, Pro sunk her own arguments from within.
The flaws in Pro's arguments were as those stated by Con, the rebuttals failed to address the fact that Con pointed at Flaws which Pro actually demonstrated.
Moving the goalposts on the word Hungry, did little to avoid the truth in Con's arguments as Pro's attempt at apologetic obfuscation of Hungry, was insufficient.
I think Pro must have metaphorically stuck her foot in her mouth on a previous occasion and got caught out.
Because "Men Are Always Hungry For Sex" is a dumb statement, so if it was used in the past, then using it was Stupid in the first place.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
No Wylted: My vote was right on, as I found a lot of faults in Pro's arguments.
Apart from not very convincing play on the term "Hungry", Pro tried to use the silly term Inert, which means weak or inactive. Thus the desire is Inactive, which destroys the "Always Hungry", because they are not always Hungry if the Hunger is Inert (Inactive).
Thus Pro destroyed her own argument.

I'm sure better words could have been used in place of Inert, like Latent, intrinsic, inborn, or I actually think Pro Meant the inherited traits in which she should have used the proper term: "Innate".

Her misuse of terms made her argument Irrational.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
OtakuJordanZarroetteTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Don't agree with Pro's use of semantics to state that men are not hungry for sex 24/7, when the title of the debate states that men are hungry for sex 24/7, besides Asexual people do exist on both sides, I've had clients and friends who are asexual, they can do sex, but they really are not interested in it at all, they'd rather do their work/hobby or read a good book. I often agree with them that they have the right attitude. It's the weird play on semantics tho that lost it for Pro, but I think this is a carry over from some previous confrontation, which I don't know about, but I'm not going to bother to look for.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
OtakuJordanZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a sufficient job arguing her case and handling all the rebuttals. Pro loses conduct for the early character assassination and forfeit.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
OtakuJordanZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
OtakuJordanZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Largely agree with Sagey's RFD. The words "always, all, never, none" are typically killers for an argument...best not to use them. I didn't buy the "subconscious libido" argument...it seems like you can pretty much attribute anything to the subconscious, since no one knows what's really in there. Regarding evolution, well, not everyone makes it, right? Those that don't, well maybe lack of desire for sex is a reason yes? I thought CON won args, didn't look at sources but prima facie they looked more convincing, conduct to PRO for everything she stated, had I scored this.
Vote Placed by BananaPhilosopher 3 years ago
BananaPhilosopher
OtakuJordanZarroetteTied
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 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: Pro was correct, in my opinion, when she pointed out that the desire is an innate, biological necessity of our species. The same argument could be used for women. In terms of what I think con was TRYING to get at, I agree with him. In terms of his resolution, however, I believe he should have specified more so there wasn't the confusion of whether they were arguing that men had an innate sexual desire, or if they were unable to control that desire by nature. My vote goes to pro.
Vote Placed by Sswdwm 3 years ago
Sswdwm
OtakuJordanZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Seriously poor conduct from Con, he has lost this point even disregarding the forfeit, with off-beat and off-topic attacks on Pro and straying from the resolution. S&G was about equal, as for sourcing. Arguments were much better substantiated by Pro, and half of Con's arguments (regarding women's sexual drive) were a red herring, as Pro pointed out, and even worse, completely anecdotal. The argument regarding the existence of asexuala carried a lot more weight and it might have been interesting if Con solely focussed on this specific point for the whole round he forfeited...... but... he didn't, so arguments go to Pro.
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
OtakuJordanZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was for irrelevant quotes on random forum topics that were completely out of topic as well as attacking Con based on her previous a/c. Forfeiture also warrants a loss of conduct. Either way, Conduct to Pro. The most important part is Freudian Psychology, as it deals with the 'subconsious' desire for sex. Evolution is a viable criterion, but neither side touched deeply on that issue. Con's first case, was a news article of a small number of participants, while Pro's case was Freud's study. Pro's case was more substantiative, as the news article was just a record of a small participant and that BoP was on Pro, her case was more important. Con's rebuttal was average, as Con uses other theories to disaprove Freud, it is much easier to criticise Freud as everything from his experiments to theories are intrepreted by him. Using counter theories is fine, but a general claim of that is a weak rebuttal. The rest was just semantics about a forum topic and a definition 'battle'. Pro wins
Vote Placed by Dakota-Hiltzman 3 years ago
Dakota-Hiltzman
OtakuJordanZarroetteTied
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: Forfeit