The Instigator
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Losing
20 Points

Topic To Be Chosen During Debate

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: 9/13/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,629 times Debate No: 5380
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (9)

 

Kleptin

Pro

This is a special debate in which the one who accepts the challenge will be the one suggesting the topics of debate.

There will be 5 rounds of this debate.

1A: This introductory post

1B: My opponent will suggest 3 topic of debate, of a wide variety of categories. The three topics of debate suggested cannot all be within the same topic of discussion, (ie. All three cannot be about Religion, All three cannot be about Politics), cannot include both sides of a particular argument, and must be broad enough for a layman to be able to adequately debate with limited research (ie. No extraordinarily complicated Physical theorems).

2A: I will respond with my choice of the three, or rule that the choice of the three subjects violates rules stipulated in 1A. If I make that ruling, 3 new topics of debate will be given as a comment and I shall respond with my choice of those 3.

2B: After choosing one topic, my opponent will then pick a position, either PRO or CON.

If my opponent picks PRO, he/she shall use the rest of 2B as his opening post, and FORFEIT 5B by typing "Thank you for the debate" until the character limit is satisfied.

If my opponent picks CON, he/she shall choose a position and wait for my opening post in 3A.

The rest of the rounds will be devoted to a typical 3 round debate.
Logical-Master

Con

Resolved: In the United States, the status quo should be upheld and minor Jail Time Ought not to be Replaced with Significant Rehabilitation.(I'm CON)

In terms of Super powers, super speed would be more beneficial than the power of "absolute obedience" (I'll define in the comment section) - (I'm AGAINST:CON)

Between girls and guys, the burden to make the "first move" (in terms of asking one another out) should be equal. (I'm PRO).

If any of these topics need clarification, I shall provide some in the comment section.
Debate Round No. 1
Kleptin

Pro

I choose the final one, "The burden of asking the other person out on a date (assuming a straight, heterosexual couple) should be equal for both sexes", CON position.

As such, I shall let my opponent make his initial post.
Logical-Master

Con

I shall be stealing . . . I mean . . . "borrowing" s0m31john's case given that I probably would have made the same argument anyway.

The social norm (the way it is now) creates a large disadvantage for extremely shy and socially anxious guys.

"Love-shy people find it difficult to be assertive in informal situations involving potential romantic or sexual partners. For example, a heterosexual love-shy male will have trouble initiating conversations with women because of strong feelings of anxiety." ( http://en.wikipedia.org... )

One may have the strongest feelings they have ever felt for someone and still be too shy to proclaim this outright. It's not a matter of "growing a pair" ( http://www.urbandictionary.com... ). It's just very hard for some people to overcome this social anxiety and and can lead to other conditions like depression (which could very well lead to suicide), when it could be solved by a nice girl taking the first initiative and realizing the guy may not be a social god.

Thus, rather than uphold our current cultural norm and insist that guys be the ones to make the first moves, such a burden should be weighted equally amongst men and women.

In addition to the above benefits:

1)A girl who wants to go out with a particular guy, but is too fearful of violating our current social code (in that a girl should wait for a guy to come to her) will no longer be burdened and will thus have the mental freedom of being able to start a relationship at her own convenience rather than merely have to wait for a "ridiculous" amount of time.

All that being said, some of the above points may need elaboration. And that'll do it for now.
Debate Round No. 2
Kleptin

Pro

"The social norm (the way it is now) creates a large disadvantage for extremely shy and socially anxious guys."

Though I do agree that the social norm today creates a disadvantage for shy, heterosexual men, I find this not the be a negative point, but rather, a positive one. More on this later.

"It's just very hard for some people to overcome this social anxiety and and can lead to other conditions like depression (which could very well lead to suicide), when it could be solved by a nice girl taking the first initiative and realizing the guy may not be a social god."

The situation described would only work out if a girl showed significant interest in the first place. Assuming that there was no such girl, and if it were the norm that girls asked guys out if they were interested, the hypothetical, socially challenged person in the example would be even more distressed. What was wrong with him that he wasn't being asked out? Without the notion that *he* would have to be the one to take action, it would immediately be assumed that he simply isn't attractive enough, or not only lacks confidence and social skills, but whatever other attributes he displayed were not good enough at all.

"A girl who wants to go out with a particular guy, but is too fearful of violating our current social code (in that a girl should wait for a guy to come to her) will no longer be burdened and will thus have the mental freedom of being able to start a relationship at her own convenience rather than merely have to wait for a "ridiculous" amount of time."

This would be the other alternative. In our system though, girls do flirt to show their interest. If the guy is so socially awkward and lacks so much confidence that he can't bring himself to ask the girl out despite all the flirting, would the girl really like him anyway? And if she does like him that much, why would social codes matter to her in that situation? Either that, or the girl herself is too socially awkward to flirt or display interest. In that case, no amount of re-balancing the courtship responsibilities between male and female could help the couple anyway.

Our social code is not "Guys MUST be the ones to ask girls out", simply that "It is the norm for guys to ask girls out". The only situation which would benefit socially awkward guys is if a girl really likes the guy, despite all his flaws. Having it be equally the norm for girls to ask guys out wouldn't open a door for her, it would just be another push. Though a rather small and unnecessary one.

Having responded to my opponent's points, I shall give my case for why our system would be better if the social expectation for asking someone out was NOT balanced 50-50 between the sexes.

The social code my opponent is arguing against is not arbitrary, nor antiquated beyond objective use. It is rooted in our biology for men to be the ones displaying their worth and women to be the ones to make the choice out of several willing candidates.

http://psychologytoday.com...

This article is about courtship processes among animals. The first page contains sections about flirting in our society. Although both sexes have their own mechanisms for showing attractiveness, it must be noted that men in particular are focused on asserting dominance, and confidence. The example in the article is of your boss leaning back in his chair, his hands clasped behind his head and with his chest out. The article designates this as showing dominance over other men and potentially flirting with women.

Women are biologically attracted to confidence and the attraction to alpha-male characteristics is rooted deep in their biology. Confidence, novelty, and means are all very attractive to a woman, and although we do like to tell ourselves that personality is important, it plays a much smaller role in the grand scheme of things. Confidence and alpha-male behavior in a man shows them their ranking in a social group. The higher the ranking, the better the environment for their offspring:

http://www.wisegeek.com...

I personally believe that shy and socially anxious men, while deserving of love just like anyone else, should still be given that hoop to leap through. The ones who can provide that will have no problem flirting with girl and asking her out. For lack of a better term, it is survival of the fittest. To argue that we should even the odds is to take away one of nature's preemptive weeding out techniques.

In addition to that, deliberately changing the system just to cater to the population of men who are insecure and socially awkward is potentially harmful to their growth. Socially awkward people usually don't stay socially awkward. Love is usually a strong enough driving force to get them to show confidence in that first leap off a clip. What doesn't kill them will make them stronger, and if they get rejected, they'll feel better knowing they did it anyway. If they hang onto the notion that girls will ask them out if they are interested, it is akin to depending on training wheels on forever. The confidence that comes from asking girls out as a habit leads in to other parts of your life as well.

I speak from experience, having been an extremely awkward and socially inept person myself. When I finally got up the nerve to ask my crush out, and got rejected, the relief and sense of accomplishment more than made up for the feeling of being rejected. From there, each subsequent "failure" hurt me less and less, until I managed to pass rejections off as a joke. From there, I also developed socially. More people talked to me, laughed with me, I was hanging out with bigger crowds and a larger variety of people. Being exposed to more people meant getting more people to like me, and from there, I also developed enough confidence to actually flirt blatantly with girls I *just* meet, and when I finally met my special someone, I snagged her hook line and sinker ;)

(Also part of the reason why I've been absent from the forum for so long, Are you reading this Gloria XD?)
Logical-Master

Con

Prepare yourself Kleptin as your defeat is imminent! Engarde!

RE:"The situation described would only work out if a girl showed significant interest in the first place."

There's no denying that my situation works under the scenario where it is a girl who has significant interest, but that's just it: If the girl has significant interest, why should she really be prevented from pursuing her interest even if that requires that she be the one to make the first move? If not, then we simply have a situation where a girl cannot act on her own desires due to the meddlesome nature of the social code.

RE: "The situation described would only work out if a girl showed significant interest in the first place.."

This argument only works under the idea that the burden is switched to women entirely, HOWEVER, as dictated, I'm insisting that the burden be made equal. Thus, the guy in that scenario wouldn't necessarily come to a conclusion that would cause his esteem to lower several levels. Rather, the guy in question would see that this girl has no intention on making the first move, thus, it would be up to him to do so. Or rather, the one who made the first move would be the one who desired the relationship the most.

In addition, the reason these people are somewhat fearful of asking others out in the first place is because the burden is mostly on them, thus, these individuals are PRESSURED severely, hence why they fear making a mistake (fear of rejection). My plan eliminates the pressure and doesn't require a "trial and error" process (such as the one CON describes when giving his personal testimony). Thus, as an unintended bonus, one could conclude that most individuals would not be so fearful or overly anxious of this matter in the first place if my proposal was the status quo. Nevertheless, if you don't buy this, I'll continue arguing under the assumption that even under my proposal, this kind of social anxiety would still exist.

RE: "This would be the other alternative . . . would the girl really like him anyway?"

Perhaps in our current system, she wouldn't. However, in my system, there would be no need for flirting. I believe we can both agree that women who are flirtatious are typically women who don't possess inefficient social skills. Thus, rather than have women play this little flirting game (which even my opponent insinuates is an imperfect method), why not just allow women to be direct? Thus, even if this guy is hardheaded enough not to completely understand the machinations of flirting as well as how to deal with it, the relationship will still be able to initiate itself flawlessly.

RE: "And if she does like him that much, why would social codes matter to her in that situation?"

Social codes matter a great deal to the typical human. As suggested in Code Geass, societies would not function if we all didn't play these roles effectively; it is necessity that we are able to put on these mask and play our parts to the very end. A women could very well like a man a great deal enough to ignore his social flaws or inability to follow the social code to perfection, however, this doesn't insure that this women in question would like a man moreso than she fears not abiding by the social code.

"Either that, or the girl herself is too socially awkward to flirt or display interest. In that case, no amount of re-balancing the courtship responsibilities between male and female could help the couple anyway."

Before I divulge, I'd like to know what CON means by this. Is he insisting that the relationship would fail based on this fact (assuming the relationship was initiated) or is he insisting that the relationship would never start.

"Our social code is not "Guys MUST be the ones to ask girls out", simply that "It is the norm for guys to ask girls out."

Straw man fallacy. Who said anything about our social code being that "guys must be the ones to ask girls out?" What I'm dictating is that the norm be replaced with "It is the norm that either guys or girls ask vice versa out."

"The social code my opponent is arguing . . . choice out of several willing candidates."

HA,BIOLOGY DOESN'T EXIST! EVERYONE KNOWS THAT BIOLOGY IS SIMPLY A LIE PROPAGATED BY THE LIBERAL MEDIA IN ATTEMPT TO KILL US!

But seriously, this biology point is ineffective against my case.

Ineffective: Men would still be able to show their worth and women would still be able to make a choice (although the very fact that women make the choice in the first place goes against CON's case as he is simply suggesting that women play games to let men know they are interested whereas MEN are actually the one's to make the choice. This is an obvious contradiction given that other species do the exact opposite: More on this later). All my plan does is make the initiation phase (in terms of asking each other out) simpler to pull off for even those who social skills aren't quite as good as others.

"I personally believe that shy . . .to argue that we should even the odds is to take away one of nature's preemptive weeding out techniques."

I'll cover CON's argument on the genetic roles of men and women while simultaneously dealing with his argument that shy/socially anxious men should still be given a hoop to leap through. The key problem with his argument is that it goes about assuming that men who are deemed "shy and socially anxious" are regarded as weak, however, I submit that more often than not, this is quite the opposite.

Since CON insist on sharing his experience and observations on society, I shall do so as well. While visiting online forums such as debate.org, one thing I notice is that many of its members have "relationship" problems (as in they can't get a date or are too socially anxious to ask someone out freely). Now one could very well consider this to be a weakness, however, at the same time, I noticed that those who aren't exactly "social-gods" make up for such weakness with uncanny mental prowess. In addition, I notice that those who are skilled debaters yet still "socially anxious" are quite adept at performance (at least this can be said for formal debaters) in front of others. I cannot help but say that I notice no such strong correlation with those who are mostly extroverted. Thus, I'd say it's fair to say that those who are socially anxious typically make up for such weakness with mental strengths, whereas it's vice versa for those who are mostly extroverts. Thus, it is rather clear that both parties balance out in terms of the strength/weakness department.

RE: "Socially Anxious men lack confidence"

This would assume that all people who are socially anxious when it comes to asking another individual are not confident by any means, however, just because one may lack confidence when it comes "leaping through the hoop" (as CON puts it), it does not mean they lack confidence entirely. In other words, let us assume that the user known as DucoNihilum doesn't possess the confidence to ask theLwerd out on a date. Although he may not possess confidence in this department, this says nothing about his confidence in terms of his debate skills, photography skills, or anything else which he is a good at. Thus, theLwerd could still see him as possessing confidence and still be interested in him. E

Re: "socially awkward is potentially harmful to their growth."

Besides my prior argument that social anxiety would be deterred through my system, lets look at this differently.

Let us say my plan works and dating is hence made much easier. This person who may have been socially awkward (although keep in mind that I'm only arguing for people who are socially awkward in terms of asking another individual out) could even still develop social skills upon socializing with his/her potential partner for a good amount of time, hence, social anxiety is still deterred. This argument may need elaboration so I'll clarify next round due to space problem
Debate Round No. 3
Kleptin

Pro

I fear you not LM! Take your best shot :P

My opponent's responses to my counterpoints are linked and as such, I will need to respond to them not in order, but with a larger, more encompassing post and will try to incorporate my opponent's major points of contention within. I will try to mark off which point I am responding to, but in order to avoid confusing the audience, I will need to string together as much of it as possible.

First, I would like to answer one of my opponent's points directly. My opponent made a point about the current system being a social pressure and being a possible cause for the shyness in the first place. However, since my opponent is LM, he is also smart enough to know that I won't buy this argument. I would argue that the pressure would be a driving force for the shy to act, since they would assume that if they want results, they would have to act. More on this later though.

I will now go over once again the seperate hypothetical outcomes of a girl-guy couple to which this debate is relevent. I used them in my initial response and my opponent used them in his.

Scenario A: Guy likes Girl. Guy is too shy, Girl doesn't know but doesn't return the feelings.
Scenario B: Guy likes Girl. Girl also likes Guy. Guy and Girl are both shy.
Scenario C: Guy likes Girl. Girl also likes Guy. Guy is shy, but Girl is not.

Wherein I use the term "Shy" to designate an inclination to NOT be the first to act due to personality. (This does not include the restriction of acting against social norms)

In regards to Scenario A, I made a claim that my opponent's system would lead to even worse feelings for the Guy. My opponent responded thusly:

"This argument only works under the idea that the burden is switched to women entirely...The guy in question would see that this girl has no intention on making the first move, thus, it would be up to him to do so. Or rather, the one who made the first move would be the one who desired the relationship the most."

My opponent is only half correct in saying that this argument would only work if the burden was switched to women entirely. I am not misinterpreting my opponent's argument that the norm should be evenly divided. This is not why the burden is shifted entirely on the female in my hypothetical. Rather, I took it as a given that we were dealing with a shy male who had no intention of acting first anyway. In that case, my system would only leave the shy male with the notion that since he did not act, and since it is the norm for guys to act first, he can only conclude that the girl does not like him so much that she is willing to bypass the social norm(which is a concession that wouldn't necessarily wound the guy). Under my opponent's system though, the guy would think "It is fine for either of us to act. I know this, and she knows this. However, I am shy, and she is not acting. I must conclude that she is not interested in me at all". Without this hoop, a shy guy would expect better results with less output from himself. That makes the lack of said results sting even more. This connects with my opening response to my opponent: My opponent's system would increase complacency. It gives shy guys more of an excuse not to act and eliminates the pressure, which is a driving force for them to make the move.

In regards to Scenario B, I made the claim that neither system would do any more good. My opponent was uncertain of my explanation:

"Is he insisting that the...start."

I will clarify that I am insisting that the probability of the relationship starting would be the same either way. My reasoning is that in the current system, 2 shy people would be akin to two immovable forces. However, the male is under pressure to act, but this is just POTENTIAL. Similarly, in the new system, 2 shy people would still not have any result, because the pressure is taken off the guy, and he now has one less driving force. However, the girl gains that POTENTIAL because the new system makes it less weird. The problem is, the girl is still shy personality-wise. Thus , there is no improvement.

Now, we get to Scenario C, in which we shall further expand on the issue of the girl. My opponent argues that his new system would allow girls to be the first to act. I would like to clarify to my opponent that in the current system, it is not unheard of or frowned upon for a girl to ask a guy out. There are few if any negative social consequences if a girl chooses to do so. It is merely NOT EXPECTED that a girl will be the one to ask the guy out. My opponent's point on the strength of social restrictions is a good one in general, but there is nothing to suggest that the norm of guys asking girls out is as rigid as he makes it out to be. With that said, I will go on to the final Scenario:

If the girl likes the guy and is not shy as a person, one of two situations can occur.

C1: The girl will need time to decide/wait
C2: The girl likes the shy guy so much, she asks him out at once.

For C1 in our current system, the girl will only wait until ANOTHER guy of equal or greater quality asks her out, or if her feelings are so strong that she eventually asks the shy guy out.

If we change the system however, there will be little to no improvement. The girl would not only be more free to ask the shy guys out, but also more free to ask regular guys out. If the shy guy is the only guy in her pool of candidates, she would have asked him out anyway.

As per C2, the same logic holds. If she likes the guy with so much fervor, she would ask him out regardless.

In this next section, I will detail the more off-to-the-side reasons for why this change would be negative.

On the issue of flirting: I agree that the system is imperfect, but I wouldn't trade it for anything else. I'm sure that for many, MANY guys and girls, outnumbering the amount that would benefit from this proposal, the flirting, hinting, mystery of courtship is the most exciting and enjoyable part. I never actually asked my girlfriend out on a first date, it was simply a matter of hinting that got more and more obvious in a gradual process, and it was exhilerating for the both of us, simply because of the uncertainty. "Would you like to go out with me" kills it.

In response to the issue about Biology, I retract my statements and I concede the point that shy men are no less biologically superior due simply to the fact that they are shy. However, I make this concession simply because I am running out of space, and find the argument not to be beneficial anyway.

And in response to my opponent's final point about the new system potentially relieving social anxiety, I remind my opponent that I do not "buy" the argument and instead argue/reiterate that the new system would deter shy guys from asking girls out, having been relieved of a driving force to move things forward of their own accord, and that it would also deprive them of a beneficial tool to improve their own social awkwardness (if it extends beyond courtship, which I would argue it does most of the time)
Logical-Master

Con

BANG! YOU'RE DEAD!

RE: "I would argue that the pressure would be a driving force for the shy to act, since they would assume that if they want results, they would have to act. More on this later though."

If this pressure were such a driving force in getting them to act, then social anxiety that concerns courtship should not even exist as the pressure would coerce the men in question into asking other people out as quickly as possible. It is more reasonable to conclude that the pressure is simply a means of making shy guys fearful of the idea of asking someone out. If anything is a driving force, it is our biology given that mostly all of us crave social interaction as well as intercourse. Thus, if the social code were to be changed, there would be next to nothing to keep our biology in check and anxiety that concerns courtship would essentially dissipate. Thus, asking a someone out would be the equivalent to eating a hamburger. When you're hungry, you eat a hamburger. When you crave a companion, you ask someone out. It would be as simple as that.

With that being said, I shall now rebutt each of the hypothetical scenarios which CON provides arguments for:

=====RE: SCENARIO A: Guy likes Girl. Guy is too shy, Girl doesn't know but doesn't return the feelings.

CON continues to insist that this scenario would result in the guy feeling bad about himself since him being shy while in a system where the burden is equal yet getting no confirmation from the girl would tell him that the girl wasn't interested in him at all. In addition, he suggest that this system encourages shy guys to give less output while expecting better result.

In response, CON's system encourages denial of the truth. Sure, under this system, the shy guy can always say something such as "Hmm, well, she only doesn't want me since I didn't act and because she doesn't wanna violate the norm. If I did act, she'd definately go out with me." This system leads individuals to arrogance as they'll never really stop to consider the idea of whether or not there is anything else about them which a woman would find unappealing. Thus, shy guys under this system will not only be too prideful to accept what may be the truth, but also won't be willing to improve themselves so that woman will be more accepting of them.

On the other hand, my system encourages the truth as well as self improvement (CON may try to argue that his system encourages this, but at most, it's only in the department of confidence to make a move). In my system, a guy simply can't fall back on the idea that he is not getting any action because he didn't act and that the girl may like him, but doesn't wanna violate the social norm. Rather, the guy concludes that the girl simply doesn't like him. When acknowledging this, the guy works from the angle of "What can I do to get this girl to like me" and not merely "Hmm, well if I simply work up the courage to ask her out, everything will be okay." This would in turn lead to more successful relationship as merely having the nerve to ask someone out is not what a romantic relationship is supported by. If that were the case, then no romantic relationship would ever crumble.

Thus, if a guy focuses on improving himself so that he may get with the particular girl he is interested in rather than focusing on having the nerve to simply make a move, this will actually encourage more output towards developing a specific and successful romantic relationship. Thus, it is quite clear that CON is dead wrong when he claims that shy guys would be giving less output while expecting better results.

====RE: SCENARIO B: Guy likes Girl. Girl also likes Guy. Guy and Girl are both shy.

CON is saying that neither party will ever make a move, but he is quite wrong. Besides my argument that no pressure leads to no shyness, let us look at this from a different approach. If it is indeed true that my system won't deter shyness, then it is true that neither side would be pressured to ask the other out for quite some time. However, due to the mutual shyness, the two would have something significant in common, thus could become good friends. After taking a while to know one another long enough, one would eventually feel comfortable enough to ask the other out. This is a good thing because neither can simply rush what could be a "failed relationship" by asking one another out without fully understanding the other's personality. In order words, my system DOES offer improvement.

===Scenario C: Guy likes Girl. Girl also likes Guy. Guy is shy, but Girl is not.

I acknowledge that it is not unheard of for a woman to make the first move, however, it is against the norm and thus more often than not, looked down upon as it is within human nature to generally look down upon all of that which does not abide by the norm. People generally don't go challenging the norm because they yearn for acceptance, hence why so many homosexuals tend to keep quiet about their sexuality (the same goes for so many atheist). In the case of a woman asking a man out, the woman may fear that she could come off as "desperate" or rather offensive to the guy as the guy might think that the girl is emasculating him through taking the role which is generally assigned to the man.

===RE: C1: The girl will need time to decide/wait:

1) You could turn this around and say the same for guys. PRO should be against the staus quo as it allows a guy to ask out all kinds of girls rather than waiting for someone of high quality to come along.
2) There would be a great deal of improvement as girls wouldn't be restricted to hooking up with people who are ASSUMED to be of greater quality. The girl could approach whomever she wanted to approach at her own convenience rather than wait for someone to sweep her off her feet. Surely that's better than just sitting around and relying on SOMEONE else. In other words, CON's system is like encouraging someone to simply hitch a ride with their parents or friends to a PARTICULAR mall or movie theater rather than simply get their own car and drive to ANY mall or the movie theater at their own convenience.

===RE: C2: The girl likes the shy guy so much, she asks him out at once.

"So much fervor" goes on the assumption that the girl likes a guy enough to violate the social norm. My system simply enables more options as the girl won't simply be limited to the guys whom she'd like with "so much fervor."

===RE: Flirting allows uncertainty, therefore creates an exhilarating procedure:

Although I will agree that flirting allows uncertainty, I won't necessarily agree with the conclusion that it allows for an exhilarating procedure. There are alot of women who simply flirt for fun while not really being romantically interested in the guys that they flirt with. This often leads to a bad experience as many don't like to have their emotions toyed with on someone else's whim? In addition, not everyone likes uncertainty. Some people aren't interested in the game like process which is flirting and would rather simply be clear on their potential partner's stance, hence allowing for an easier procedure when it comes to courtship.

===RE: Biology

I can't be vote down under the false idea that shy men are biologically inferior.

===RE: New system does not relieve social anxiety:

For the most part, I covered this point initially. In terms of improving social awkwardness in general, communicating with someone else (who is not a part of your family) does the trick (which is the result of my plan) as well, so improvement of social awkwardness in general has no bearing here.

BOTTOMLINE: My plan makes courtship easier for men and women whereas CON's acknowledges that his plan is a long redundant process of trial and error that relies on uncertainty as well as self delusion (see first scenario). In addition, my plan eliminates social anxiety that concerns courting. Vote for me (PRO).
Debate Round No. 4
Kleptin

Pro

"BANG! YOU'RE DEAD!"

*Matrix-style dodge*

"If this pressure were such a driving force in getting them to act, then social anxiety that concerns courtship should not even exist"

This is not the correct conclusion. Fear of rejection will always be present and that shyness/social anxiety will always be there. Rebalancing the burden of asking someone out between males and females does not reduce the shyness of the male in any way, shape, or form, and my opponent has made no case supporting that notion. Thus, the correct way of seeing it would be that biological urges and fear of rejection are forces in opposite directions, leading to a standstill. However, the notion that nothing will come without action will apply the needed pressure to move it in the direction of bypassing that social stress.

In other words, shy guys will be just as shy regardless. They are not wary to act because the burden is on them. They are wary to act because the burden exists at all. Whether the burden is 100% or 50%, a guy who thinks about asking a girl out will be just as nervous. Having the pressure be closer to 100% will just force his hand if he wants anything to progress.

Thus, my opponent's notion that shifting the balance leads to an uninhibited acting on biological urge is simply incorrect.

=====RE: SCENARIO A: Guy likes Girl. Guy is too shy, Girl doesn't know but doesn't return the feelings.

"CON's system encourages denial of the truth...This system leads individuals to arrogance"

Strawman fallacy. I never made the contention that the guy would immediately think that it is the ONLY reason. I stated that the importance is in the fact that the possibility exists. Much like how a 10% chance of survival vs. a 0% chance of survival would each have an extraordinarily different impact on a cancer patient's morale. The proper mindset for the guy would be "Well, I didn't act, so I can't really expect anything. Until I get the urge, I won't know how this will go".

"On the other hand, my system...the guy works from the angle of "What can I do to get this girl to like me" and not merely "Hmm, well if I simply work up the courage to ask her out, everything will be okay.""

As I said above, this is a misinterpretation of my argument. If it were true that men would have such an arrogant mindsst in the old system, my opponent would be correct. However, this is not the case, as someone with such a prideful mindset would probably not have any problems asking a girl out in the first place. Thus, my opponent's contention that men in his system would be more oriented towards bettering themselves is unfounded.

====RE: SCENARIO B: Guy likes Girl. Girl also likes Guy. Guy and Girl are both shy.

"Besides my argument that no pressure leads to no shyness"

I have responded and disagreed with this notion, so we will skip that and go to my opponent's backup.

"...could become good friends. After taking a while to know one another long enough, one would eventually feel comfortable enough to ask the other out..."

My opponent does not provide enough reasoning to show that this is an improvement over the current system. If the two become so close that they overcome their shyness and are willing to comitt, the shifting would have no impact. Overcoming personal shyness is much harder than bypassing the social norm of asking someone out, be the person a girl or guy. In addition, long friendships of this sort often end up negatively. Feelings die out over time, a woman has a particular window that closes after a period of inactivity. Furthermore, she shifts candidates along one of two ladders

http://ladderwiki.com...

This makes relationships developing out of long term friendships between 2 shy people very rare, rare enough such that the population that will benefit from the shift (if any) is negligible compared to those it would harm.

===Scenario C: Guy likes Girl. Girl also likes Guy. Guy is shy, but Girl is not.

"I acknowledge that it is not unheard of...emasculating him through taking the role which is generally assigned to the man."

I would argue that in this scenario, the guy would never mind, as he already likes the girl and is too shy to make a move himself. Being asked out by the girl would be a very welcome relief. Yes, given our current social code, some men may feel emasculated or turned off, but not the particularly shy ones. These would be the men who are used to the notion of asking girls out, which have no bearing on this debate.

===RE: C1: The girl will need time to decide/wait:

1) My focus is not on settling for a long term relationship, rather, for the shy guy to accomplish his goal, which is to ask out the girl he likes.

2) When I say "greater quality", I mean in the eyes of the girl. She could wait for guy-A until a better guy-B comes and asks her out, rejecting the ones worse than guy-A along the way. To reiterate my point, no girl is static unless she likes one guy obscenely, and in that case, she would ask him out regardless. And I have said that it would be an improvement for a very small subset of women, there are exceptions for every case, but I would argue that so many more prefer to be chased rather than to be chased. It isn't for fear of rejection, but because it raises their own sense of value to be wanted and show indifference in return.

===RE: C2: The girl likes the shy guy so much, she asks him out at once.

In that case, this would shift the balance with your other argument. Having a girl be more prolific in asking guys out would hurt shy guys more, since the active ones would rush to the girl even faster in order to beat out competition.

===RE: Flirting:

This is essentially a rote "Will you go out with me?" "Okay" Vanilla type response which has become kind of archaic. I agree that those who want that sort of direct, uninteresting route will benefit, but those are usually the people excluded from or at at least not very keen on the dating process. The mystery and uncertainty are appealing to those who are secure in themselves and not foreign to casual dating, the thrill of the chase. In fact, the flirting is one of the most rapidly escalating parts of the courtship process in terms of building attraction. Getting rid of that would be detrimental.

CONCLUSION:

My opponent's main arguments:

1. His system will be better for shy men
2. His system will be better for women

For his first contention, my opponent essentially argues that relieving the burden relieves the stress. However, he never correlates this exactly. The stress and insecurity come from the person himself, and from his own fear of rejection. This fear will not go away if the burden shifts. It can only affect him less since he will be more inactive. My opponent's system lulls shy men into more complacency. Our current system forces shy men to act.

For his second contention, my opponent assumes that there is a big niche to fill. First of all, it is quite common nowadays for girls to ask guys out, even though the reverse is the norm. Second, I would say there are far more girls who enjoy being chased rather than doing the actual chasing. This is simply a matter of ego, it feels better to be wanted than to want. Changing the system would only have it revert back the way it is.

My opponent believes that something is wrong with the system and that it needs to be corrected for equity. Although I have given him the point about Biology and thus, will not use it against him, I argue that our current system exists the way it is for a reason: it is currently the best suited one. The changes that my opponent proposes, if they are beneficial at all, would only be beneficial to a subgroup. Those who do not have the dating restrictions my opponent listed would be put at discomfort, making it generally more harmful than helpful.

VOTE KLEPTIN :D!
Logical-Master

Con

You must understand that I really REALLY wanna rebutt the points my opponent brought last round as I see some pretty enormous fallacies in his logic. Nevertheless, a deals a deal and I am obligated not to argue during this round. Thus, I command you all to watch this video closely and then vote for me:
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
Meanie :P

I don't think many people are going to vote. We've abused the character limit in each and every round XD
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Technically, I did indeed forfeit by not posting any arguments, so there's no violations there. As for saying thank you, I said it nonverbally. If we are to take the word "type" as a means of sending a message to another or others, then that is exactly what I've done, only it may be difficult for one to decode my message. Thus, I have violated no rules. ;-)
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
Hey hey hey, Clear violation of rules there : /

"If my opponent picks PRO, he/she shall use the rest of 2B as his opening post, and FORFEIT 5B by typing "Thank you for the debate" until the character limit is satisfied."

I need every little bit >.>
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Too many bugs on this site. :(
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Ix nay on the video part. I'm not sure why it's suddenly not working.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
heeheee, my R4 juuuuust made the limit XD
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Darn character limit!. This shall be tough.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
It follows all of the rules in Code Geass as specified here: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
All three are good so far. I just didn't want a repeat of what happened the second time I made a debate like this x.x some guy put up

X form of debate is better than Y form of debate
Y form of debate is better than Z form of debate
Z form of debate is better than X form of debate

Which was just obnoxious.

I think I'll take the last one, but why don't you specify on the super power one? Does it follow Lelouche's rules or is it modified :P?
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
What exactly do you mean by a wide variety of categories?

As in, one politics, one religion, and one miscellaneous topic?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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 Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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 kevsext 8 years ago
kevsext
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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 DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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 Zero 9 years ago
Zero
KleptinLogical-MasterTied
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