The Instigator
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Losing
39 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

Resolved: Opposites rarely attract and discourage romantic relationships for the most part.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,375 times Debate No: 1476
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (21)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

Throughout life, you're bound to run into someone who'll claim that opposites attract. Enlightening as it may seem at the time you hear it, it is simply a phrase which the real world hardly supports. In today's round, the job of the affirmative side will be to prove the previous statement beyond the notion of a doubt.

First, I'd like to cite a study provided by BBC news during the year of 2003: http://news.bbc.co.uk.... This source was conducted mostly through means of deduction in the format of questionnaires. As you can guess, the conclusion was that opposites do not attract. The following is quoted from the article: "Our results suggest that individuals seeking stable long-term relationships should not seek the highest quality partner available but should simply look for partners who are similar to themselves." Another study founded in 'Journal of Personality and Social Psychology" (in the February 2005 issue) had concluded that it was similarities which determined the success of a relationship: http://diserio.com.... Here is another quote from the above link: "According to a University of Iowa study on mating issues (mating based on similar or opposite characteristics), which studied 291 newlyweds that had participated in the Iowa Marital Assessment Project, researchers found with very strong evidence that people tend to marry those who are similar in attitudes, religion and values."

Second, lets examine the actual logic behind the notion "Opposites attract." Generally, the reasoning is that two people are looking for someone who can fill in the "hole" in their personality. This "hole" is suggested to be all the traits that the individual in question does not have. That said, a relationship takes plenty of work. If two opposite individuals are to socialize and "romanticize" (sic), they will need to carry out their relationship through activities that they both enjoy. But that's just it, isn't it? If two individuals are opposite, they certainly won't enjoy "activities" together as their interest will always conflict. In fact, the only thing these individuals may possibly enjoy is sexual intercourse, and we all know that sex alone cannot carry out a successful relationship. Therefore, if two individuals are to have a successful relationship, they must possess similarities.

Third, let is observe why opposites may seem to attract. Many relationships are built on mere sexual attraction to one another. Freelance writer/web publisher Luigi Di Serio had performed countless research only to conclude that opposite attraction is common is dating/courting and is divined out of excitement/curiosity/adventure ( http://diserio.com... ). Clearly though, this excitement/curiosity/adventure can't last forever as their comes the point to where a relationship must reach its high point: Marriage. To be blunt: Dating and marriage are quite different. With dating, you're free to be elusive; if there's a problem with your potential lover, you can simply break up and find someone else. On the other hand, marriage is a commitment that is supposed to be permanent (although divorce is often possible). The basic point here is that opposite attraction can work when two are dating, but for the epitome of successful relationship (marriage), it cannot.

With that said, I now stand waiting for the Negative side to present his/her constructive as well as his/her rebuttal to my opening argument.
beem0r

Con

I'll first make it clear that we aren't debating whether actual, literal opposites attract in the context of romance. If you insist that we are, you must deal with the difficult problem that none of us have an opposite to which you're denying the likelihood of attraction.
No, we're debating whether the idiom, "Opposites attract," works out in practice or not (in the context of romance).
The idea behind "opposites attract" is not "The less you have in common, the better!" The idea is that each member of a relationship compensates for the other's weaknesses with his/her own strengths.

First, I'll respond to your points:

First, you brought up a BBC news report. However, the criteria were so ill-thought-out that it would be foolishness to assume any other outcome would have taken place. Consider three of the four categories:

family commitment
physical appearance
sexual fidelity

Obviously, someone committed to family will expect the same from a potential mate. Obviously, someone committed to maintaining sexual fidelity will expect the same of their potential mate. And physical appearance is, I think, _obviously_ out of the realm of what 'opposites attract' is supposed to mean.

Likewise, I'm sure the other link in your first paragraph had similarly ill-thought-out criteria. For this reason, these sources are not useful.

Next, you attack logic behind it. However, you make a fatal error: the 'hole' in one's personality is not considered to be "all the traits that the individual in question does not have." People need others to fortify their own weaknesses, and to fortify others weaknesses as well. Opposite in this idiomatic sense does not mean the couple cannot have anything in common, nor does it mean this would be favorable. Common interests are useful for maintaining a relationship, but I would go so far as to say that we are in fact attracted to new activities, new types of people, etc. More on that next paragraph.

Lastly, you tell a tale of a freelance web writer who agrees with my side of this debate. You note that these feelings of mystery, anticipation, excitement, curiosity and adventure from experiencing something different only really come into play for dating, while these couples rarely get married.
However, you're forgetting a very important thing. People date because of attraction, people get married because of compatibility. One more reason to ignore those other sources you listed, they all had studies about marriage success. Marriage success does not depend mostly on attraction, but compatibility.
An excerpt from the article you linked:
"Mystery, anticipation and excitement, curiosity and adventure all come from experiencing something different. Sure opposites clash, but that is often where the sparks and the passion is created."

And that's it for answering your points. Next, I must bring up another point of my own (my last response paragraph had a point in it already):

Gender differences:

As we all know, there are many differences between men and women. Not just physical differences, mind you. Men tend to be more aggressive, more direct, less emotional/sentimental, more egotistical and proud, and probably some more comparative adjectives. I am supposing that the reason for such differences is the same as the reason for gender roles (men hunt animals, women take care of land and kids). The reason is as follows:
As one trait dominates in one gender, that gender is less likely to want the same thing from the other gender. In these cases, the differences are complimentary. It's like forming specialized roles. Once one trait is favored by most of the other gender, it also begins to dominate (since those without it have a harder time finding a mate). The very differences between the genders are evidence enough of opposites attracting. That is the means by which those differences came about.

When it's helpful, opposites attract even in marriage. When it's not, the relationship doesn't work. Either way, the attraction is still there.

I'll leave it at that for now.
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for taking the time to respond to my initial argument on the subject. With that said, let us proceed:

First, I would like to state that my opponent's rendering concerning the meaning behind the actual resolution is correct (for the most part anyway) in that we're debating romantic relationships "for the most part." Once again, the meaning behind those last four words concerns a successful romantic relationship. A successful romantic relationship is generally defined as marriage, although it can be in the form of a long-committed non-marriage relationship.

Now, I shall respond to my opponent's rebuttal concerning my points.

He accuses my BBC news report citation as being ill-thought-out. His reasoning behind this notion is that any other outcome would not have taken place due to the categories listed.

I would like to remind the audience that these four categories are each broken up into a series of questions on the matter of the individuals beliefs. Contrary to what my opponents alludes to, there is no such simplicity in the manner this research was carried out as a series of questions would be a means to determine the LEVEL of each category rather than if one is merely interested in said category. It certainly isn't as simple as "both Bob and Sue being pro-family", thus being that they are well attracted to each other.

My opponent then dismisses my second link by claiming that he is sure that it has the same ill-thought-out criteria, but the problem with this, ladies and gentleman, is that he is essentially claiming that he is going to dismiss my second citation simply because he has a HUNCH that it's fallacious. As one may or may not realize, a hunch (or in better terms, an opinion) does not make a refutation.

In short, his reasoning for my citations being useless to this debate are heavily flawed and cannot be considered in your judgment; I implore you to dismiss his 'dismissals.'

My opponent then attacks my logic concerning the AFF of the resolution by claiming that people need others to fortify their own weaknesses (and vice versa) and that people are attracted to people who can guarantee them new activities. I believe the writer (who my opponent claims to agree with) covers this (more on that in a moment), but a question I would like to ask to my opponent is whether or not he is advocating that a relationship can be successful between two individuals WITHOUT any common interests whatsoever. If that is the case, then i would like to ask him how an "odd couple" (no pun intended) could get along. If their basic values and criterions for life conflict, wouldn't there always be heated arguments and other such negative activities between the two? Surely, such a relationship would end in failure.

Next, my opponent elucidates that the author from my citation agrees with his side of the debate, but with statements such as "Many relationships are built on the foundation of sexual attraction or simply lust. Those are fleeting feelings and certainly not enough to make a relationship work. If people don't want the same things, or have different values and beliefs, the relationship is bound for failure", this is simply not the case. Keep in mind of what the resolution is: "Opposites rarely attract and discourage romantic relationships for the most part." In my quote from the author, the author states that many relationships are built on attraction to sex and that this type of attraction is bound for failure.

In that essay, the author's point was that dating concerned mystery, anticipation, excitement, curiosity, and adventure. Surely if the author were in favor of the negative side of the resolution, he would have mentioned a term synonymous to romance. But that's just it, isn't it? According to the author, during the early stage of a relationship, it isn't the potential lover which the individual is attracted to. No, it is these feelings of excitement which the individual is attracted to. The resolution concerns two individuals as well as a romantic relationship; it concerns nothing about thrills. In noticing that key difference, the author's stance is quite clear.

My opponent also suggest that marriage concerns compatibility whereas dating concerns attraction, but as I've mentioned above , an individual is attracted to the thrills that can be divined from dating rather than his/her potential lover (according to the author who my opponent states he agrees with). I would also advocate that a successful romantic relationship requires both.

I'd also like to make it known that the author from my citation was the one to post the results from the second study I mentioned earlier. So again, if my opponent is to agree with Luigi Di Serio, he is essentially conceding to my case.

Finally, lets look at my opponent's constructive.

Basically, my opponent attempts to prove that opposite attraction is common by appealing to the differences there are in genders. First, this is a fallacious argument for this debate as there are successful romantic relationships that occur between individuals of the same gender. Second, craving for domination from the other partner is most easily explained through an individuals upbringing. If an individual is raised with the notion that the "man" is supposed to be the one who protects the family and whatnot whereas the "woman" is to one who is to cook and clean, the individual will likely seek that kind of relationship. Thrills of being around a different social setting have nothing to do with it.

And with that said, I now stand ready for my opponent's second rebuttal.
beem0r

Con

Response:

>>Once again, the meaning behind those last four words concerns a successful romantic relationship. A successful romantic relationship is generally defined as marriage, although it can be in the form of a long-committed non-marriage relationship.<<

Compatibility and commitment are more what's needed to drive a successful marriage, not attraction. The extent to which 'opposites attract' affects marriage is solely in each member supporting the other's weaknesses.

>>He accuses my BBC news report citation as being ill-thought-out. His reasoning behind this notion is that any other outcome would not have taken place due to the categories listed.<<
...
>>It certainly isn't as simple as "both Bob and Sue being pro-family", thus being that they are well attracted to each other.<<
My point was that in any of those fields, people would likely want the same things from their partner as they have.

>>My opponent then dismisses my second link by claiming that he is sure that it has the same ill-thought-out criteria, but the problem with this, ladies and gentleman, is that he is essentially claiming that he is going to dismiss my second citation simply because he has a HUNCH that it's fallacious. As one may or may not realize, a hunch (or in better terms, an opinion) does not make a refutation.<<
My apologies, I forgot to change that after I viewed it. It's the same link as the one you posted further down, so I already responded to it. Not only that, it supported my side - that opposites DO attract, they just don't necessarily tend to have the most successful marriages.

Also, the point of marriage is meaningless. We're not discussing if opposites are compatible. We're discussing if they attract. Anything you post with marriage statistics is irrelevant. As I've said, attraction isn't enough to support a marriage, you need compatibility and commitment. This is why opposites tend not to do so well here - they tend to not be so compatible.

>>My opponent then attacks my logic concerning the AFF of the resolution by claiming that people need others to fortify their own weaknesses (and vice versa) and that people are attracted to people who can guarantee them new activities. I believe the writer (who my opponent claims to agree with) covers this (more on that in a moment), but a question I would like to ask to my opponent is whether or not he is advocating that a relationship can be successful between two individuals WITHOUT any common interests whatsoever. If that is the case, then i would like to ask him how an "odd couple" (no pun intended) could get along. If their basic values and criterions for life conflict, wouldn't there always be heated arguments and other such negative activities between the two? Surely, such a relationship would end in failure.<<

Once again, you're speaking of the success rate of relationships. This is not attraction, this is compatibility, something we're not discussing. Without any common interests, a couple would be incompatible. They might be attracted to each other, but they would grow weary of a relationship once they realized how hard it would be.

>>Next, my opponent elucidates that the author from my citation agrees with his side of the debate, but with statements such as "Many relationships are built on the foundation of sexual attraction or simply lust. Those are fleeting feelings and certainly not enough to make a relationship work. If people don't want the same things, or have different values and beliefs, the relationship is bound for failure", this is simply not the case. Keep in mind of what the resolution is: "Opposites rarely attract and discourage romantic relationships for the most part." In my quote from the author, the author states that many relationships are built on attraction to sex and that this type of attraction is bound for failure.<<
Yes, but the author also says:
"The research suggested that, "there is no evidence that opposites attract." The study was fascinating and comprehensive, but their conclusion wasn't. The word "attraction" usually refers to the initial feelings a person has that spark an interest in the other. So in the realms of courting dating and sexuality, being opposite and different, is fulfilling in many ways. Mystery, anticipation and excitement, curiosity and adventure all come from experiencing something different. Sure opposites clash, but that is often where the sparks and the passion is created."

Your article agrees with me. Opposites DO attract, they just don't have successful marriages. Opposites don't discourage romantic relationships either, they just don't often have very successful relationships.

>>My opponent also suggest that marriage concerns compatibility whereas dating concerns attraction, but as I've mentioned above , an individual is attracted to the thrills that can be divined from dating rather than his/her potential lover (according to the author who my opponent states he agrees with).<<
So when differences cause feelings about someone, they're not real feelings, but when similarities do, they are?

Also, whether it can be considered romance is debatable. Consider, however, the topic of the debate:
Opposites rarely attract AND discourage romantic relationships for the most part.

As pro, you must show that BOTH of these statements hold up. however, I don't think there's much disagreement that opposites often attract.

I'll address your last paragraph now, and add a point of my own.

>>Basically, my opponent attempts to prove that opposite attraction is common by appealing to the differences there are in genders. First, this is a fallacious argument for this debate as there are successful romantic relationships that occur between individuals of the same gender.<<
See below.

>>Second, craving for domination from the other partner is most easily explained through an individuals upbringing. If an individual is raised with the notion that the "man" is supposed to be the one who protects the family and whatnot whereas the "woman" is to one who is to cook and clean, the individual will likely seek that kind of relationship. Thrills of being around a different social setting have nothing to do with it.<<
I think you missed my point. I explained that the very REASON for these differences in gender personalities and roles is that opposites attract. As Trait A became more common in one gender, its opposite became more common in the other gender, which is why the genders are so complimentary in both personality and roles.

Now your point about gay couples...

Ever noticed how almost all homosexual men are... effeminate?
Perhaps this explains why they aren't attracted to females, no?
It works the other way too. Not many lesbians are all that womanly (except the ones you see in porn, who probably aren't lesbians).
I propose that the reason there is such a strong connection between acting like the opposite gender and being attracted to the same gender is due to the fact that opposites attract. As an effeminate man, one might have too much in common with a girl. Enter homosexuality.

And so I rest, for now.
Remember, you must show that opposites rarely attract. Attract, not develop a successful marriage. I believe it has been shown thus far that opposites often do attract.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

IMPORTANT NOTICE (MUST READ): Due to the character limit in the system, I cannot post my entire response in this reply, so I'm going to post the remainder of my arguments in the comments section. My opponent (if need be) is free to do this as well. The webmaster of this forum has okay' d this action as acceptable, so I would ask that you do not dismiss everything in the comments section. Now, without further ado . . .

In this round, things will seem a bit out of order as I first intend to address the Con's continued rebuttal to my third contention. Based on my opponents stance, I believe this to be the most crucial part of his case as it links to the rest of his argument. Through refuting it first, his case will diminish. Now, let us proceed:

First, my opponent quotes Luigi Di Serio with the following: "The research suggested that, "there is no evidence that opposites attract." The study was fascinating and comprehensive, but their conclusion wasn't. The word "attraction" usually refers to the initial feelings a person has that spark an interest in the other. So in the realms of courting dating and sexuality, being opposite and different, is fulfilling in many ways. Mystery, anticipation and excitement, curiosity and adventure all come from experiencing something different. Sure opposites clash, but that is often where the sparks and the passion is created."

Basically, the author's point was that he wasn't satisfied with this research. The quote my opponent refers to is actually further proof that he supports my case as he surely would have had more to said more than "The study was fascinating and comprehensive, but their conclusion wasn't." If you'll notice, the author goes on to talk about attraction in that thrills are experienced through opposites while dating, but unlike my opponent, never goes on insinuating that a couple supports each other's weaknesses. In fact, he insinuates just the opposite. Observe the following quote:

"Frequently people are too involved by the time they realize the differences and people often "settle" while feeling unfulfilled." This conflicts with my opponents argument as the author expresses that differences frequently lead to unfulfillment. If you don't buy that, lets look at another quote from the article:

" If people don't want the same things, or have different values and beliefs, the relationship is bound for failure." I mentioned this one before, but allow me to elucidate even further: This also conflicts with my opponent's idea that a couple's conflicting characteristics support each other's weaknesses because the author deems that couples with such differences are bound for failure.

Through notification of both of these quotes, it is quite clear that the author is against my opponent's case.

In the next round, my opponent will likely respond by advocating that the two above quotes are dismissible (for my argument) since they concern relationships (which he states concerns compatibility and commitment rather than attraction). If he does that, just take into account the following: The resolution: Opposites rarely attract and discourage romantic relationships for the most part. The circumstances behind the success rate of relationships is the heart of this debate. Therefore (contrary to what he has stated), compatibility is indeed relevant to this debate.

Anyway, as for the rest of the author's quote, he insinuates that conflicting personalities can be where the spark starts. In other words, where the excitement begins. The author is indeed correct as having a great time while socializing with one another can give a couple the chance to know each other and recognize their respective similarities that can push to relationship to a full blown romance.

Next, my opponent follows by stating the following: "Opposites don't discourage romantic relationships either, they just don't often have very successful relationships." I'd usually ask for a clarification, but since this is my final round, I submit that my opponent is contradicting himself here. He says opposites don't discourage romantic relationships and that opposites just don't have very successful relationships. Given that the author doesn't refer to any other kind of relationship, that statement would clearly suffer from internal contradiction.

Then, my opponent poses the following question towards me: "So when differences cause feelings about someone, they're not real feelings, but when similarities do, they are?"

My answer: Yes. As the author of the article I presented insinuates, conflicting characteristics present attraction towards mystery and excitement. Allow me to elaborate with an illustration: In public speaking, one of the best tactics in winning over your audience is to appeal to someone they are interested in or to simply tell a witty joke that has some relevance to the topic at hand. Often times, neither of these tactics have a great a great deal to do with the topic at hand, but in using them, one can grab his/her audience's attention in even the most boring of topics. An expert on the subject, David Norelius, explains why this tactic is extremely beneficial is his article here: http://www.whitman.edu... . In any case, the point being made is that an audience interest almost always has to be appealed to before the audience can accept the meat of the issue which the speaker is attempting to deliver. The same applies with relationships in that something that doesn't have anything to do with an individuals personality can be used as a means to spark another individuals interest to the point that he/she is willing to explore and become attracted to his/her potential lovers values/beliefs.

Next, my opponent states that it is my job to show how "Opposites rarely attract and discourage romantic relationships for the most part." My job has been successful as the article which I had presented (which my opponent has no problem with) suggest that opposite pairings are bound for failure and that individuals will likely be attracted to the thrills (that can come from a conflicting relationship) rather than his/her potential lover.

Moving on to my opponents continued rebuttal to my first contention: He states that compatibility and commitment is needed for a successful marriage whereas attraction isn't. I agree that the kind of attraction (the attraction to mystery, excitement, and adventure) is unnecessary (as noted in my above rebuttal). It is unnecessary because it has nothing to do with the actual potential spouse and is merely self-serving. However, the kind of attraction that is needed is the attraction to personalities. As my research citations indicate, this kind of attraction is best manifested between couples who have similar personalities. As for the matter of individuals supporting each other's weaknesses, I had covered this in my above rebuttal, but will reiterate the same point: As the author from my citation suggest, a relationship which involves two individuals of different values and beliefs is bound for failure. And as my first research citation concludes, most successful marriages (which are usually considered the epitome of successful romantic relationships) involve two individuals with synonymous traits.

FOR THE REST OF MY ARGUMENT, SEE THE COMMENT SECTION:
beem0r

Con

My opponent continues to equate attraction to compatibility, and romance to lifelong commitment.

This will also answer my opponent's claim that I'm contradicting myself by supporting the link he used in round 1 - I will attempt to explain what the differences are.

First, romance can be had in any relationship. It does not have to result in marriage, and the vast majority do not. Romance is not only attained through marriage.

Each of these relationships were romantic. Each of them were in part successful in the beginning due to personality differences and the resulting attraction. Each of them came to an end due to incompatibility. Sometimes, attraction and incompatibility can be caused by the same things.

My most recent ex was very religious. I was very attracted to this, since I really had no outlook at the time on religion. I still find it endearing that she can find such strength in something I cannot. However, I soon realized I was able to believe less and less. Eventually, it came to the point when I was upset at religion for its trickery, and I realized then that this would cause great problems if we were to get married. She'd want to raise the kid religiously, I'd want to not. It is for this reason that we had to end our relationship.

My point? Something does not have to be compatible for it to be an attractive attribute.

We both agree that initial interest is largely based on differences and the excitement they bring. This IS attraction. In this sense, opposites DO attract. And this is the sense in which the statement is used.

My opponent uses some trickery to make his side seem more valid. He asserts that an attraction based on differences is in fact only an attraction to the feelings those differences bring. However, he refuses to apply the same terms to his side, asserting that attraction based on similarities is attraction to the actual person.
As far as I'm concerned, this is rubbish, a baseless claim. Attraction to a person for any reason is attraction to the person.

Your second author DOES agree with me. As PRO, she would have said "Opposites are rarely compatible and discourage lifelong relationships for the most part"

Romantic relationships do not have to achieve marriage status, and rarely do. Attraction does not imply compatibility either.

Almost all my opponent's points are built on this problem. He continually uses one to mean the other, and assumes contradictions for me because of it.

And as far as supporting each other's weaknesses, it largely only comes into play with compatibility. I only talked about it because you attacked the notion that this ever happens in round 1. You attacked the very logic behind it. However, the point was not relevant to the resolution, since it concerns compatibility for the long term rather than attraction. I only addressed it because you did, perhaps I should have just left it alone.

And also, to be quick about it, I'll just list the main reasons I'm not using your "studies" that show that opposites do not attract.

First, the BBC one. It is based on a questionnaire given to college students. People rarely know what they'd feel about a person given attribute X. Much of the time, people find it puzzling why they are attracted to someone. A questionnaire on such a matter will likely be inaccurate for this reason.

Second the study mentioned in your second article. THE AUTHOR YOU CITE DISAGREES WITH THE CONCLUSION, for the same reasons I do. The study was about marriage success rates. We're not talking about success. We're talking about attraction and romance.

For a statement from the author stating disagreement, here. I've pasted it before.

The research suggested that, "there is no evidence that opposites attract." The study was fascinating and comprehensive, but their conclusion wasn't.

This means that while they carried out a high quality study, they drew false conclusions from it.

About my gender roles argument (man provides and protects family, woman looks after household) -
You can largely ignore it, it was dealing more with compatibility than attraction.

About my gender PERSONALITY differences argument -
This is still valid. Go hang out in a group of solely high school girls... then go hang out in a crowd of solely high school guys. Not only are there vastly different topics, the behavior will be vastly different.

And in defense of my effeminate gay argument:

You say I'm using stereotypes, but I'm not. You cite the manly warriors of Sparta, stating that they were gay and they were surrounded by only other men. This is WHY they resorted to homosexuality - it's all they could get. Do you think the prison population is largely composed of homosexuals-by-nature? You'd be wrong.

I believe that's it for responding to valid points (those that don't rely on equating compatibility with attraction, romance with marriage). I'll respond to my opponent's closing statements now.

[I fail at overcoming]...

>>The credible research used to suggest that most opposite individuals do not attract towards each other.<<

I've addressed this research and why I dismiss it.

>>That conflicting personalities are typically bound for failure as suggested in both studies and the author in my citation<<

Bound for failure is irrelevant. Attraction does not imply that you're bound for success, nor does romance.

>>That attraction to the thrills a potential spouse may produce cannot substitute attraction towards a potential spouse's personality traits.<<

It's still attraction to personality traits, just attraction to traits that are different rather than similar. Neither is more valid than the other in regards to 'real' attraction.

>>That successful couples with differences between genders physically or mentally has nothing to do with the actual attraction within the couples personalities.<<

Because you say so? It's the _personality_ traits of the genders I refer to. Effeminacy is based on largely having the personality of a female. I hold that men are generally attracted to women because of personality differences inherent in the two genders. Not to say that's the only reason, but it is _a_ reason.

>>Some of his arguments suffer due to contradictions with each other.<<
I've thrown out the 'point' I made with 'supporting each other's weaknesses.'
I was only trying to use it as a point because of your second point in round 1. I was forcing it, even though it made it seem I was disagreeing with myself. However, as I've stated, that argument referred to compatibility, not attraction.

>>That Luigi Di Serio (who he claims to agree with) disagrees with him as shown in multiple quotes.<<

I believe I've shown that I agree with said author, and that you are the one in disagreement. Once again, the author would claim "Opposites rarely are compatible and discourage lifelong commitments for the most part." However, we're not talking about marriage or compatibility, we're talking about attraction and romance.

Since I'm approaching the sound barrier (8000 chars) and don't want to have to make comments, I'll end with the following assertions.

My opponent has agreed that attraction results from having differences. However, he asserts that these feelings of attractions are merely feelings for the emotions they bring about, while attractions because of similarities are supposedly true attraction to the person. I believe he failed to back this up, and I have shown that these should be treated the same.

My opponent agrees that relationships happen because of differences. However, he insists that these relationships are not romantic because they are doomed to never reach marriage. I would deny this with at least 3/4 of the fibers of my being (and my being has a lot of fibers).

I enjoyed debating you, look forward to possible future debates.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
on the gene level, opposites do attract.

Our body odor even aids in detecting opposites.
research has resulted in the interesting conclusion that we like the natural body odors of people more if their genes are very different to ours.

ps: i don't know if this was mentionned in the debate and no, i didn't vote. (i never do without reading it all)
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Eyeleapy, why didn't you post? C'mon man, I like reading your comments. :P
Posted by alexthemoderate 9 years ago
alexthemoderate
I'm a diehard Yankees fan, and my girlfriend of almost 2 years is a Red Sox fan.

To your credit, though, we aren't complete opposites. We're politically similar, we're both interested in a lot of the same things, we both love rugby.

But still, if you know the Yankees/Bosox situation, then you know what the conflict is.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
PART OF BEEM0R's ARGUMENT:

Just kidding, I managed to fit it in 8000 chars. Had to delete a few sentences, but they were non-vital.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
PART OF LOGICAL-MASTER's ARGUMENT:

Closing statements: I believe that my opponent and I have exhausted all avenues of the subject at hand. I maintain my position that "opposites rarely attract and discourage romantic relationships for the most part" is correct and that my opponent has failed to demonstrate how his position overcomes the following:

1) The credible research used to suggest that most opposite individuals do not attract towards each other.
2) That conflicting personalities are typically bound for failure as suggested in both studies and the author in my citation

3) That attraction to the thrills a potential spouse may produce cannot substitute attraction towards a potential spouse's personality traits.

4) That successful couples with differences between genders physically or mentally has nothing to do with the actual attraction within the couples personalities.

5) Some of his arguments suffer due to contradictions with each other.

6) That Luigi Di Serio (who he claims to agree with) disagrees with him as shown in multiple quotes.

With that said, I thank my opponent for taking the time to debate with me and hope to have the opportunity of debating with him again in the future. I would also like to thank the audience for taking the time to read the arguments.

Good night! :D
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
PART OF LOGICAL-MASTER's ARGUMENT

Concerning my opponent's point about gay couples, I would say that my opponent is appealing to a homosexual stereotype. Sure, homosexual men are often presented as effeminate in the eyes of the media, but there isn't really much to suggest that nearly all homosexual men are like this. In fact, there is actually information to suggest otherwise. It is common knowledge that the historical spartan soldiers of sparta commonly practiced homosexual acts. During that time period, the battlefield was a place for mostly men. According to my opponent's argument, most of these men would surely not be interested in acts of battle (which were to be considered the epitome of manliness) if the stereotype of most homosexuals being effeminate was true. I would also like to make it known that there are numerous homosexuals who take up bodybuilding (especially in the prisons). If I recall correctly, bodybuilding is mostly considered a "manly" activity by our society. Of course, this part of the argument isn't really much different than the part I just addressed. As I insinuated above, one gender being dominant and the other being submissive has more to do with what the individuals are capable of doing for each other rather than their actual personalities.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
PART OF LOGICAL-MASTER's ARGUMENT:

Now, I will address my opponent's defense for his constructive:

My opponent argues that the very reason for these differences in gender personalities and roles it that opposites attract. That said, my previous rebuttal is still sufficient, but I will expand on it. As I suggested in my previous rebuttal, the typical "Man protects his family" and "Woman cooks and cleans" for her family idea is nothing more than an idea manifested from an individuals upbringing. With that said, ladies and gentleman, one thing you must keep in mind that attraction to these ideas is not necessarily attraction to the individual. As I suggested earlier, this isn't an attraction to a thrill, but rather attraction what a potential spouse may be able to do. Keep in mind that there is a difference between being attracted to what an individual may provide one with and the individual himself/herself. Attraction to what an individual may give another individual has nothing to do with the resolution which concerns attraction to the individuals themselves. I submit that a woman marrying a man just because the man is capable of protecting her falls under the criteria of what Luigi Di Serio tells us about concerning relationships which are bound for failure. In other words, if a woman decides to marry a man just because the man is rich (and will thus be able to provide for her) this will not produce a successful relationship. The same goes for the contrary: If man decides to marry a woman because the woman can provide him with lots of sexual intercourse and a clean house, that relationship is also bound to fail.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
PART OF LOGICAL-MASTER's ARGUMENT:

My opponent adjusted his response to my second research citation by claiming that the author who presented it supported his side. As I've shown above, the author does not support his side. Furthermore,, my opponent states that opposites just don't necessarily tend to have the most successful marriages, but this conflicts with his rebuttal to my second contention as he argues that successful romantic relationships (which are typically in the form of marriage) can easily be between two individuals who support each other's weaknesses. Obviously, it is impossible for him cannot to support both of these arguments at the same time.

He goes on to state that the point of marriage is meaningless, but the resolution concerns opposites discouraging successful romantic relationships, so even by his definition of marriage (a relationship that concerns compatibility rather than attraction), it is still relevant to the topic. Also, as I have shown in my refutation to his continued rebuttal to my third contention (or in simpler terms, the argument I first addressed in this round), attraction is what supports marriage as individuals being attracted to each other's personalities is almost always necessary for a relationship to thrive.

For his continued rebuttal to my second contention, he again states that we're not discussing the success rate of relationships, but as I've stated in the above rebuttal, we are discussing relationships as the resolution clearly mentions the words "romantic relationships." He states that without any common interest, a romantic relationship would be incompatible. However, this conflicts with his point that a conflicting romantic relationship could work if the individuals could support each other's weaknesses.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
PART OF LOGICAL-MASTER's ARGUMENT:

Speaking of my research citations, my opponent clarifies his point by stating that people would likely want the same things from their partner as they have, but my previous rebuttal to this is still sufficient. By saying that "people would likely want the same things from their partner as they have" based on the categories listed, he is suggesting that the criteria of categories within the research is not complex enough (in that there should have either been more categories of categories which people wouldn't likely want to automatically agree on) to be considered valid. As I have previously insinuated, the lack of complexity notion is flawed as different levels of interest concerning "family interest", "sexual fidelity interest" and "physical interest" are what would equate to this research being complex. Moreover, I guarantee that my opponent would use the same argument regardless of the criteria presented as the truth is that most people are simply interested in other people who possess similar values/beliefs as they do. Heck, you'll notice that on nearly every online dating site, it requires that participants list the activities/values/beliefs they are interested in. Now of course, there are exceptions on those sites that may concern conflicting physical traits, but those are typically associated with other criteria that do not concern attraction or compatibility (more on that in my rebuttal to the argument my opponent created).
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
beem0r, this is certainly the webmaster as I had posted a message directly to the staff through use of the comment feature. I was sent an email and my original comment was posted at the bottom of the email. So yes, Webmaster is the real deal.

And usually, I would agree with you on the matter of simply adhering to character limit, but I feel that my argument in (its current form) cannot afford to decrease in length. Plus, I have my studies to attend to, so I'd have some difficulty in finding the time to briefan my argument.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JUDGE 9 years ago
JUDGE
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by THEmanlyDEBATER3 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by eyeleapy 9 years ago
eyeleapy
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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