The Instigator
R3d
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Should online dating be outlawed?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 689 times Debate No: 61347
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

R3d

Pro

It is corrupting the dating scene. It doesn't only affect the person who chooses to OLD. Even the people who choose not to OLD are being affected by this because for example, a lot of women are becoming unapproachable as a result both deterioration of social skills in society in general and women having an easy way to filter men who she thinks are unattractive, which she may have actually accepted in real life. There are so many other factors in rela life that could potentially sway a woman into saying "yes". This gives women unnecessary power in the dating scene and finding a significant other is much harder for men as a result.
Zaradi

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I'll get started right away.

To start with, my opponent is advocating for a really interesting position. Needless to say, he needs to be giving the voters very clear reasons for why online dating (abbreviated as OLD) ought to be abolished. Just arguing for why offline dating is superior isn't sufficient to prove that burden. We can argue why driving is a much more efficient way of traveling than walking, but to say that because driving is more efficient we ought to abolish walking would be silly (for one how woul we get out of bed?).

So with that in mind, this debate is really simple: so long as I'm refuting my opponent's case, he can't win the round. Of course I'll advance arguments of my own to make sure there are refutations and defenses to be made for both sides, but all I have to do to win is show that there isn't any reason to abolish OLD, which means refuting the affirmative side.

So let's get right to it. Let's look at the case the affirmative makes.

For starters, even if he's proving his case to be 100% true, he's not going to be showing why OLD ought to be abolished. He's listing a lot of reasons why OLD is a bad way to date in general (leads to inferior social skills, gives women too much control). While I'll respond to these claims and disprove them, even if they are true, this doesn't explain why OLD as an industry (and it most certainly is an industry, I'll go into this more later) ought to be eliminated entirely, rather all he's showing is why he views OLD as an inferior method of dating.

But let's look at the claims individually, starting with the deterioration of social skills.

First of all, my opponent isn't providing a shred of evidence to justify this belief. A mere assertion that this is true isn't sufficient to warrant this point.

Second of all, this doesn't even make sense. Most OLD sites actively encourage face-to-face social encounters which would breed active social skills, which runs contrary to my opponent's claim. There are entire "special event divisions" to many OLD services that take eaters out of chatrooms and put them in an offline social environment (1), which would only make people more socially competent.

Third of all, even on a most basic level his argument still doesn't make sense. Even if you're using OLD to find someone, you don't spend the entire time from the first hello to "Will you marry me?" In a chatroom. The chatroom merely serves as a facilitator of contact, and a way to transition to more intimate one-on-one dates, much like going to a bar to look for singles does.

His other claim, that OLD gives women too much power and control is just as silly, if not more so.

First off, this point, like the last one, lacks any kind of evidence other than a mere saying that women and preview and reject profiles. That's not sufficient to show that they have "too much control"

Second off, his "justification" that women can pick and choose doesn't make sense because men have that same ability too. It's not a feature that's locked out if you select on your profile that you're a guy.

Third off, the even funnier point is he doesn't give any kind of explanation for why this is even a bad thing. So what that women can pick and choose what kind of guy they want? Why does that matter?

But fourth off, there are even points where men control the process more than women. By the time you hit 48, men have twice the number of online suitors than women do (2). So it's not just women controlling the entire process.

With that being said and done, it's time for me to raise a few points of my own. And these points are doubly important because if I can show that there are advantages to using OLD, then you should negate the resolution because if there are advantages to the system, there would be no reason to get rid of it.

OLD is a billion dollar industry (2) that provides matchmaking services to over fifty-four million people (2). One in five marriages in the last year were a result of OLD (2). And contrary to the reputation of there being stalkers and sex offenders behind every profile, only 10% of reported sex offenders use online dating to find victims (2), meaning you're safer behind a computer screen than in a bar, making OLD a safe way to meet other people.

Overall, I've shown that not only is there no reason to abolish OLD, but there are actually advantages to using it. The resolution is negated.

Sources:

(1) http://www.huffpost.com...
(2) http://www.statisticbrain.com...
Debate Round No. 1
R3d

Pro

R3d forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Con

This is gonna be a long slew of forfeits...
Debate Round No. 2
R3d

Pro

R3d forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Con

And let the forfeits begin...
Debate Round No. 3
R3d

Pro

R3d forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Con

Oh hey wouldja look at that. Another forfeit. Who would've ever guessed he would've forfeited it. I bet for sure he'll be here for the last round! I bet you a million bucks!
Debate Round No. 4
R3d

Pro

R3d forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Con

Whelp. Looks like I just lost a million bucks.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
R3dZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost the debate by not responding to Con's arguments, but Con lost a million dollars. Advice for the future to Con: usually, once new accounts forfeit the first round, they will forfeit all of the rounds. I hope you recover financially.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
R3dZaradiTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
R3dZaradiTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry Zaradi. This was something that could have been cool that boiled down into FFs.