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

Personality Vs Appearances in relationships

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2014 Category: Funny
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,295 times Debate No: 54107
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




First Round is for acceptance.

My side will argue that having a relationship with someone who has a good personality and not as great of looks is better than having a relationship with someone who has great looks, but an awful personality.

This debate is only for fun and amusement, so please dont take anything personal.

Thanks, i look forward to the debate!


Great topic, should be really fun.

To answer this, let's go back to the reason why humans even have relationships in the first place.
Before dating, relatonships consisted of one thing, sex. For a good reason too, it was much easier for a guy to
take a girl home and make kids than to have to stab a deer and have dinner with her. There was little reason to date, that limmerence that embodies the beginning of all reationships is all you needed. Besides that, as long as she looked pretty, her personality didn't matter. Today though, these methods are frowned upon and punishable by law. Culture has evolved and love has been stretched out into lifelong (or weeklong, as the case may be) commitments. Guys still love a pretty face, but now women desire more than being toys. Which makes sense but it takes away from a man's natural attraction to a woman. Relationships weren't ever meant to be more than an affair for a night. For that one night, all that mattered was how she looked.
The point here is simple. Guys love girls with nice bods for a reason. Girls don't like being seen as just a nice bod. Guys are urged into commitments where in order to be able to handle the chick, he has to get to know her.
Debate Round No. 1


Alright then, thanks so much for accepting.

Now, In the beginning of this debate, my opponent offered an explanation of what relationships used to be and what they are now. I would just like to start off by saying that his whole explanation of relationships is completely wrong. Now, I'm assuming that my opponent is not a Christian (because of the things he just stated) so his view on the matter would be completely different, but that still, if you have studied all the facts, this would be an easy concept to understand.
Most of the world in history believed in a God, the one true God who created all of the universe. There were other religions for other cultures, but basically everyone had a religion and believed in a God. Now I'm going to focus mostly upon American, English, and a few European countries (such as France, Italy, Spain's) History. Now, All of these countries have always believed that there was a God. Those countries even have some of the worlds biggest Churches and worship places. So, because all these countries believed in God they had completely different views on this matter than people from the 19-21st centuries. Evolution was only introduced in 1858, and before that basically no one had any doubt that God didn't exist. This changes everything my opponent just said. If people believed in a God, then the purpose of a relationship would be love. Which would mean, the whole purpose of relationships is definitely not sex. While this may be some of the main reasons why some people date today, this was not the reason all throughout history. My opponent gave that explanation based off of only what he thinks is right, not based on facts. If my opponent would like me to go further in depth of this and of this history, I would be glad to do so.

So, as we can see, because the whole purpose of a relationship (as I have just established) Is NOT sex, then we can move on with this debate.

Because the purpose of a relationship is not sex, then we must ask ourselves- what is it?
A relationship is simply a bond between two people which basically makes them "saved" if you understand that. The whole purpose of "dating" and having relationships is to "save" or claim a person until marriage. Dating is different from marriage because its not permanent, its a way for people to test out how they work with another person, and to see if they truly love them. Now, if you were getting married, would you want to be married to some jerk who was attractive, for the rest of your life? Or would you rather be married to someone who had the most amazing personality, and just a great heart, but they weren't as attractive as the girl next door.
I can guarantee you that if you ask MANY couples that have been married for longer than 15 years, they will tell you that they didn't marry each other for their appearances- Its truly sad how the newer generations believe that appearances are all that matters in everything. Relationships, as we have established, are for putting a certain person on "hold" for marriage, If you truly love someone, you shouldn't care what they look like, only what their heart and personality is like.

(Just a quick side note; This is not a Religion debate on weather Atheists are right or Christians, I was just stating common facts. If anyone would like to debate religion with me, if be glad to do so on a different debate.)

So to conclude this first Affirmative speech, Think about the history and facts all throughout history, they obviously flow to my side of today's round.

Thank you so much for reading.


My opponent made an excellent point pertaining to the intents of starting a relationship above. I will be arguing two points. One refuting one of my opponent's claims and one supporting my claim.

Pro claim : True Love shouldn't have to do with the appearance of an individual but their personality

Con claim : The subconscious start of a relationship is naturally intended to lead to the production of offspring

(Warning the following content may be found not suitable for younger readers, continue at discretion)

To start off, it is common to state true love as a deep, heartfelt connection between two individuals that is extremely difficult to break and will likely carry the couple through a long relationship. I am assuming that this is my opponent's definition as well. However this definition is a tad vague though. It is simply describing the emotions felt during "true love". A much more concrete description would be stating where these feelings come from. These emotions are triggered from hormones released in the brain. More specifically Oxytocin and Vasopressin. These hormones are associated with strong feeling of love and commitment. They are only spread when an individual feels very strongly about his significant other. They both influence social behaviors like trust and bonding. They make the individual more trustworthy and loving of his partner. They also play drastic roles in parenting of both sex's. In both women and men it is found to have an affect on their need to protect their young.

The interesting thing about this hormone is that not only does it cause mammals to trust and bond with the other sex, but it also comes into play during childbirth and sex. Now my opponent has stated that sex is, in fact, NOT the cause of relationships being formed and continued. However since the same chemicals are secreted in the brain during not only bonding and love but also during sex and childbirth, that would go to show that according to our brains, reproduction and "true love" are merely two names given to the same thing.

As I stated, oxytocin is secreted during sex. An even more critical factor for my argument is that these hormones peak during intercourse. For women, Vasopressin peaks during orgasm. For men, Vasopressin peaks during arousal and Oxytocin peaks during orgasm. So it would seem that our bodies decided that these chemicals are what makes us love someone not personality. Also it shows us that a relationship is only a stepping stone towards sex and further on to the creation of offspring.

Before I start my next claim I would like to apologize to my opponent. The first round of this debate was for acceptance and my beginning argument should not have presented until round 2. As a result I have gained an undeserved advantage of having more slots to make my point than my opponent.


The opposition has pointed out a few fallacies in my opening statement. I would like to have a chance to refute them even though I shouldn't have been able to. The arguments are as follows:

1. I based my argument solely around my beliefs and not off of factual evidence.

2. Since the theory of evolution wasn't presented until 1858 that would mean that my argument isn't valid since without knowledge of this theory, a religious individual would only start a relationship for love and personality.

I will admit, my first argument was based almost entirely my own speculation with a pinch of evolutionary science included. I feel I did not convey the evidence as thoroughly as I should have. In order to ensure a completely factual statement, I will present my next argument in a Claim/Fact format.

Claim: All organisms need to reproduce.
Fact: If an organism did not reproduce it would be phase into extinction and would no longer be around

Claim: An organism must contain the attributes required to reproduce.
Fact: without these qualities, reproduction would be impossible

Claim: Making the sex's more attracted to these qualities would promote successful reproduction
Fact: If a sex is drawn to the other sex with good reproductive qualities, sexual reproduction will occur more often and be more successful

Claim: Men are attracted to women with larger breasts and hips because it encourages reproduction
Fact: Large breasts are ideal for feeding offspring and large hips are useful for child bearing

Claim: Humans are attracted to each other because this attraction promotes reproduction
Fact: All evidence stated above

I would also like to point out a fallacy in my opponent's reasoning. He states that evolutionary effects could not have played a role in relationships before the theory of evolution was even conceived. The theory of evolution does not need to be present for it's effects to be. Therefore, the sexual tendencies and hormones acquired through evolution still affected the relationships of couples before it was known these causes existed as they are all subconscious.

As a closing statement I would simply like to reinforce my points;
  • "True Love", sexual reproduction, and childbirth all exhibit similar hormones and therefore show they are all linked and have little to do with the personality of the opposite sex.
  • Relationships and the hormones that are exuded during them are the products of natural selection and are designed to make Sexual reproduction more likely and successful
  • Humans are attracted to individuals of the opposite sex with certain qualities because those qualities make it more likely conception childbirth will go smoothly.

In terms of reproductive success, Having a relationship with an individual who has attractive features is better.

Debate Round No. 2


Taylor-Magnuson forfeited this round.


This round has been skipped and due to my opponent not making any arguments this round, I have no rebuttal to deliver.
Debate Round No. 3


To start off my last speech, I would like to go ahead and and accept my opponents apology concerning his unfair advantage in the beginning of today's round.

Con presented 5 claims and facts, im going to address them one at a time

Claim: All organisms need to reproduce.
Fact: If an organism did not reproduce it would be phase into extinction and would no longer be around

Con is correct here, all organisms need to reproduce, and if they didn't, they would become extinct.

Claim: An organism must contain the attributes required to reproduce.
Fact: without these qualities, reproduction would be impossible

Again, Con is correct there.

Claim: Making the sex's more attracted to these qualities would promote successful reproduction
Fact: If a sex is drawn to the other sex with good reproductive qualities, sexual reproduction will occur more often and be more successful
Claim: Men are attracted to women with larger breasts and hips because it encourages reproduction
Fact: Large breasts are ideal for feeding offspring and large hips are useful for child bearing

(Im addressing both of these claims in one argument) this is where i say he is wrong. Con stated that Women with more attractive features such as bigger hips etc, can give birth more easily, that is a completely ridiculous argument. Every women, fat skinny, short tall, ugly pretty, ALL give birth the same way (except for personal reasons like not being able to give birth, health problems, etc...)

Claim: Humans are attracted to each other because this attraction promotes reproduction
Fact: All evidence stated above

Con is completely focused on sex for this debate, and that is all his arguments are based on for this around, but in my beginning speech i gave the purpose of relationships, dating, etc.. Con admitted that he was basing his arguments on what he thought was true, with a little bit of Atheism in there. He has completely ignored this explanation, and thus that argument flows fully to the Affirmatives side, and my argument still stands.
-My opponent said that evolution didn't need to be an actual theory, that it took part before that. This is where i say he is wrong. Because my opponent is an Atheist an i am a Christian, we have different views about this, but as i have stated before, evolution was not brought up until 1858, it did not existed before that. Yes, there were some (a VERY few amount) of people that were 'starting' to question God, but basically everyone believe in a creator.. and I'm going to state that the evolution theory is wrong, is was only brought up in 1858, and it was based off of what one man thought was true, there was (and still are) no evidence of this theory. The only explanation we get is "Over thousands of years..." but there is no proof of this. There is more proof that God exists than the theory of evolution. (but as i stated before, this is not a religion debate, if anyone would like to debate that with me, I'd be glad to do so another time.)

What is "true love?"
True Love is defined as- a sweetheart; a truly loving or loved person.
Love is defined as- a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.

Love is the fondness one person has for another. It is not based off of looks, but hearts and personalities.
let me give an example to make everything clearer-
Your out looking for friends, because your all alone and you desire to have friends to talk to, to tell your problems too, who will encourage you and be there for you. (as most humans tend to feel that way) Your looking, and you have two options; You can be friends with that VERY attractive person over there who is selfish, greedy, and does not care about you at all. OR, you could be friends with that person who is not as attractive as the other one, but they care about you, want to listen to you, and they have a good heart. Friendship isn't measured by how attractive you are.

That's the same with "True Love." You don't love someone to simply have sex with them... if so, that's not loving someone. if all life was, was reproducing and sex, then whats the point of life? there would be NO point! Relationships are God's special gift to us because as humans, even having all the love of God, we still crave human affection, so God made it so a couple could be bond together, and after that feel free to have kids, or whatever else they desire. There are thousands of people in the world who do not desire to have children, yet they want a relationship. Why? Because they desire True Love.
I agree that sexual reproduction and childbirth contain that same hormone, but not true love.

Definition of Reproduction- the act or process of reproducing.
Definition of Reproduce- to produce one or more other individuals of (a given kind of organism) by some process of generation or propagation, sexual or asexual.
here is a list of Synonyms for the word reproduce-
do again

As you can see, no where in that list is the word "Love" or "True Love" so my opponents statement that "reproduction and "true love" are merely two names given to the same thing" is false.
As I have stated before, my opponent ignored my explanation of Relationships, and thus i should win simply because my side was based off of facts, and history.

Since this is my last speech, I would like to apologize for dropping the last round, and i would like to thank everyone who took the time to read, and vote on this debate.
Thank You all SO much!

(source for definitions and Synonyms -


To end this debate I would like to first start off by addressing the focus of the majority of my arguments. My opponent is correct in saying my arguments were centered around sex and science way more than most would expect a debate about love and passion should be. My arguments should have been focused around more of the advantages of being in a relationship with an attractive person. I most likely would have been able to build a case around that too but this being the last round, I'm not supposed to create any new arguments as that would be unfair since the affirmative would not be able to refute them.

However, the case I did make can still be tied back to the topic at hand. Also, this debate is not over. My opponent did make some devastating errors in her rebuttal that will be brought to light. Let's begin.

Con argument: Men are attracted to women that have attractive features that promote successful child-birth because this encourages reproduction.

Pro counter: Women with any features, attractive or not, give birth the same way.

Pro fallacy: Her counter here is obviously made without research. Even a simple search can show that wide hips, breasts, and a thin figure have a very positive impact on childbirth. Wider hips allow for an easier delivery. Bigger breasts tend to provide more milk. A thinner figure reduces birth complications.
Also don't forget, all these features are what determine how attractive a woman is to the majority of men! So this would show that my argument is not "a completely ridiculous argument." Also this reinforces my point, men are attracted to features that promote reproduction because that's the way we were designed. We need to reproduce to survive, and if men search for features in women that help us survive, there is a much better chance of this happening.

Pro argument: Con admitted that he was basing his arguments on what he thought was true, with a little bit of Atheism in there. He has completely ignored this explanation, and thus that argument flows fully to the Affirmatives side, and my argument still stands.

Con counter: Pro states here that I was basing my arguments on my beliefs and Atheism. While I did state my first argument on these criteria. However, I never stated my following arguments were based one such premises. I even stated that I was including the claim/fact arrangement to avoid this preposition as it was intended to take all the bias out of my argument! And I feel is does so successfully.

Moving on to her next statement, I ignored her explanation on the purpose of a relationship and therefore her argument goes unrefuted and she gains the advantage because of it. Once again, she must have missed something. Her reason doesn't even support her own claim! She states that a relationship is a means of "reserving" another human for marriage. Also she throws in there that it is a means of testing a potential mate for marriage. To find out if they have a personality fit for marriage. The ironic thing about her claim is that I can use her own argument against her!

She stated that since evolution wasn't known before it was conceived then my argument holds no ground. Flip some words around;
Since Marriage wasn't known before it was established, then her argument holds no ground. Her argument relies upon marriage being around for relationships to have a purpose. But what happened before marriage? Sex was always around but marriage sure wasn't. The bible does state marriage started with the first couple, Adam and Eve. However my opponent stated that this was not a religious debate and should be based around fact. Which the bible is most definitely not (yet). So the fact that her argument went unadressed by me only serves to hurt her own case so the argument does not go to pros side.

Con claim: Evolution could have taken effect before it was introduced.

Pro counter: No it couldn't have. Since people didn't believe in Evolution, it could not have been a factor. Evolution also has less support than God does.

Pro fallacy: Quite funny isn't it? My opponent discredits me by saying my arguments are based on my own speculation and then immediately starts bringing her Christian religion into the matter. I will state once again, Evolution does not need to be believed for its effects to take place. By evolution, I mean the factors that it is based around, like natural selection. Natural selection would have played a part in getting men attracted to women that are more likely to produce healthy offspring. It doesn't matter who believed in what, if evolution is fact then it would still cause people to choose potential mates based on features that promoted sex. Regardless if you're Atheist, Christian, Hindu or Muslim you would still be affected by this need to create kids.

Her next point is that God is supported by much more evidence than Evolution. This too, must have been concluded without a hint of scientific research.
You have the right to believe what you please, but you have to support what you say. Evolution has much more support than any religion does. There have been studies, research, and experiments performed to make evolution such a sturdy theory! None of these have been performed on any deity, with useful results anyway. As you have mentioned, this is not a debate on religion, so don't make statements that would suggest it is!

Pro claim: If sex and reproduction was all to life, there would be no point to life. Also, relationships are God's gift to humans because the crave human affection. How the relationship is handled is up to the couple.

Pro fallacy: Her first point states two thing that are false. 1. Life has a "point". 2. If life was just sex and reproduction, there would be no point to life.
1. Life requires no point, there is nothing to suggest it does need or have one. 2. Sex and reproduction could be that "point" then, could it not?

Her next statement suggests God gave us relationships because we desired human affection. But why did we desire human affection? There had to be some reason. If God made us then he obviously must have made that desire too. We couldn't just magically crave this love for other human. Our brain is where this craving takes place. There also must be a reason we crave people . Without a reason, we wouldn't crave them. So It would make sense that if god didn't make this craving, we did. We did for a reason, that reason being my argument. We crave each other because it's good for reproduction.

Pro claim: She agrees that reproduction and childbirth share the same hormone but not true love. Also she defined true love for us.

Con counter: What pro agrees with doesn't matter! This is a debate. I showed you that true love is only a hormone. I showed you it is the same hormone used in sex. I showed the proof. Pro gave a definition of the emotions in true love and said that is what it is. I defined what true love actually is. A chemical, nothing more. Oxytocin and Vasopressin. That's why we feel "true love".

Pro claim: Since "Love" and "True Love" are not synonyms with "Reproduction" then my statement " Reproduction and True Love are two names given to the same thing."

Con counter: My opponent left out a crucial detail. I never made that statement. I made the statement "according to our brains, reproduction and "true love" are merely two names given to the same thing." Notice the difference? I said " according to our brains". Meaning that since the brain assigns the same hormone to Love and sex, they are the same thing to our brain, therefore the have the same purpose, kids. Also the synonym thing was a pretty lame argument.

Synonyms of Love: Passion, Honey, Lovemaking, Sexual, and Beloved. Nothing about personality In there. See? It's not very convincing.

So that concludes this debate. Out of characters so Sources will be in comments. Had fun with the debate thanks for making it!

Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Nathaniel2840 2 years ago
AlexanderOCc I would love to debate the purpose of relationships with you. Give me a couple days to finish up some other debates and I'll challenge u.
Posted by Taylor-Magnuson 2 years ago
I apologize AlexanderOc..... Nathaniel is one of my close friends, You did a very fine job so far, and I don't believe my arguments were that bad either, so Nathaniel, if you would like to explain why the debate is so bad then please explain....
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
We'll skip the round.

Seems like you know what you're talking about. Mind sharing your arguments that make ours so bad?
I didn't think my case was that bad but if you have a better one, by all means give it a toss.
Posted by Taylor-Magnuson 2 years ago
SO sorry I forfeited the last round! I was just about to post my argument when the time ran up! I cwe can either skip that round, or I could post my argument in the comments if you like... Its up to you. Again, I'm VERY sorry about that.
Posted by Nathaniel2840 2 years ago
On the other hand"Con's arguments really stink too. Because Pro wanted me too"I'm officially recalling all previously stated statements about argumentation pertaining to her, and how it is absolutely horrible. But still tho"consider dis a double loss
Posted by Nathaniel2840 2 years ago
I believe that Pro is making horrible arguments. This is a for sure win for Con. Pro is being an ethnocentric LD debater want-to-be who can't debate to save her life. I would encourage u all to vote Con
Posted by Taylor-Magnuson 2 years ago
Dont worry about it, Your fine.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
I just now realised that first round was acceptance, sorry about that.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheRussian 2 years ago
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: Pro accuses Con of being biased and bringing religion to the table while Pro herself uses religion as support. Pro's excessive use of religion is what really brought her down. In a debate, the only things that matter are facts (unless stated otherwise). Con provided many facts while Pro did not. Pro, as I see, is relatively new to the site and I welcome her, but with a warning. Con caught Pro several times when she failed to do research on the subject, which is crucial. This is very important, in your future debates, make sure to know all about the subject and rely on FACTS, unless it is a religious/moral debate.