The Instigator
dDAK1225
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
FreetimeToBurn
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should you date a nerd

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2013 Category: Funny
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 718 times Debate No: 39780
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

dDAK1225

Con

i think no, because they are ugly and they are weird, you should only date a nerd if you really truly love them
FreetimeToBurn

Pro

A few complaints about the resolution. The word "should" implies the presence of necessary justification. This combined with "you" used in the resolution creates a paradox due to the vastly disparate nature of what is viewed as justified. Accompanied with the failure of the contending user to present any sort of context for the round, creates a "debate" (I use the term loosely) that can't be won. That said, I'll continue with my argument.

Because debate.org specifies Pro (for the resolution) and Con (against the resolution) I'll be arguing under a sort of "tug of war" framework. The winner of the debate must be decided by cost-benefit analysis. Just because the Con presents a reason why "you" should not date a "nerd", they do not win. In cost-benefit analysis, action (in this case victory) must be determined by the marginal costs and benefits of said action.

I win because I illustrate why it would be more beneficial to date a nerd than not to.

1) We can't predict the future.
My opponent cites that the actor should date a nerd if and only if the actor does truly love the nerd. Love isn't conditional and it is far less expected. As in many a chick-flick (I use the term non-pejoratively), love happens when you least expect it. That said, because we can't predict if we will love said "nerd", the actor must pursue the opportunity because the actor may fall in love. This action is supported by the con.

2) Looks aren't particularly important.
In terms of the human timeline, good looks have been used primarily to differentiate between good and bad traits to explore in the gene pool. Offspring with seemingly "ugly" and asymmetrical appearance could not contribute to the gene pool because they were targeted. This article gives a brief summary of the phenomenon (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...). Looks, however, are no longer necessary for means other than aesthetics. As evidenced by increasingly mechanized prothetic limbs, deformations and maladies alike can be treated with the application of intelligence rather than good looks. This is further supported by current payrolls throughout the economy. Pornstars, who undeniably have good looks, receive far less than a "nerdy" doctor or scientist. Society looks up to these "nerdy" figures and so should the judge.

3) Weirdness is good.
Normality is boring. Look at the trends of suicide and depression. Monotony is often cited as one of the leading factors leading to suicide. Dating a "nerd" solves for this.

For these reasons, the pro should win the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
dDAK1225

Con

dDAK1225 forfeited this round.
FreetimeToBurn

Pro

FreetimeToBurn forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
dDAK1225

Con

dDAK1225 forfeited this round.
FreetimeToBurn

Pro

FreetimeToBurn forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by nicola_mac 3 years ago
nicola_mac
FreetimeToBurn...... oh snap.
No votes have been placed for this debate.