The Instigator
brontoraptor
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

We should go to the park together

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 2 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 429 times Debate No: 93738
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

brontoraptor

Pro

We should go to the park together.

Round 1)Acceptance

Round 2)Arguments

Round 3)Rebuttles and arguments

Round 4)Tell each other something that made/makes us sad.

Round 5)Tell each other something that made/makes us happy.

Good luck Con.
Danielle

Con

Thank you for the challenge. I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
brontoraptor

Pro

We should go to the park together. Why?

1)According to studies, women like men who make them laugh.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

I am good at making people laugh on debate.org and in real life. The response I get more than any response on here is "lol". I get a lot of lol's in real life as well. I come on this site to get my goofy side stimulated and challenge people in good fun.

2)Women tend to like strong, passionate men.

http://www.lovepanky.com...

I am very passionate in music, my pets, fishing, and kayaking.

3)Women tend to be attracted to muscular guys.

I am a muscular guy. I work out routinely, do kayaking, jogging, play basketball, and walk and play with my dogs.

4)Women tend to want a caring man.

https://www.psychologytoday.com...

I care very deeply for people and wish the best for everyone.

5)Women tend to like open minded men.

http://www.meetmindful.com...

I am open minded and very self reflective. I have observed you guys and apply things to make me a good communicator with the opposite sex. I know we are different and have learned to embrace those differences and find commonality. Example? I am open minded to the Libertarian view of the world and politics. I see good things about Liberal and Conservative ideas.

6)It's okay to be adventurous sometimes. Trying new things and listening to new ideas is good and interesting.

7)I'm a great cook. Nuff said...

8)I am a good, strong, safe place to snuggle.

-----

At the Park-

1)We could feed the ducks bread and crackers and fingers... :(

2)The park would be on the lake, so we could find a cliff, spread out a blanket, and eat a meal that fits our food likes, and have a little wine perhaps.

3)You could tell me what you see in the shapes of the clouds as we look up.

4)We could walk my 2 dogs and play frisbee with them.

5)You could tell me about your life, hopes and dreams.

6)You could tell me all about why Hillary and Trump creep you out. I'd tell you why far left progressives and far right religious wackos creep me out. You'd laugh and probably try to distract me to get to the wine. I'd know what you were up to.

7)I'd only go with you if I had your Libertarian consent. I can't go to the park with an unconsenting gal. It's just not right or decent. It's funner with consent and much more humane.

8)You'd most likely want to go to the park with me again just to make sure I'm everything I seem to be.

Your show Con.
Danielle

Con

Introduction

I would like to thank my opponent for this challenge. I will use this round only for proactive Arguments.

01. In order to go to the park with Pro, I would have to travel (to some distance, even if it were close to home) which exhausts valuable resources. For example, I might have to spend money getting to the park which would not be favorable if I'd prefer to spend the cash on other things.

02. Since I have a limited amount of time, there are other people I would prefer to go to the park with. There are also other things I could do with my time including make money, have sex, or do something that I definitively and wholeheartedly enjoy -- vs. something I may potentially hate.

In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative forgone where, given limited resources (like time) a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives -- i.e. going to the park with Pro vs. doing something else. "The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in attempts to ensure that scarce resources are used efficiently. Thus, opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered opportunity costs" [1].

Attending the park with Pro might also induce in me a Fear of Missing Out or FoMO, which is "a pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent" [2]. Thus I might feel more anxious or dissatisfied by my outing with Pro, especially if there is truly more utility or pleasure to be had in the opportunity cost.

03. People prefer spending time with others whose company they enjoy. Since I do not know if I would enjoy Pro's company, I can only make assumptions based on what little information I have. For example, I know he appears to be conservative which is very off-putting. I can assume that we would not have a lot in common to talk about or experience pleasurably together.

04. I can also assume that Pro wouldn't approve of my friends, lifestyle, individual traits or values. This increases the likelihood of conflict. Conflict encourages hostility, tension, resentment and potentially violence.

05. It's arguably not safe to travel and spend time alone with strange men. This would put me at some level of risk. It also puts Pro at some level of risk. After all, if I misconstrue his actions, I can accuse him of trying to be aggressive and he may be penalized unfairly.

06. I'm married, thus I don't make it a habit of going to the park with strange men by myself. My spouse might have to come with us, thereby (potentially) adding an entire new dynamic to the outing. If my spouse doesn't want come with us, or understand why I might go to the park, then suggesting (and acting on) going to the park with a strange man could add unnecessary conflict to my otherwise happy and stress-free day. My levels of cortisol would increase (the stress hormone) which could negatively impact my physiology and physical well being [3].

07. Assuming I wanted to spend time with Pro, I might not want to go to the park. The park can be cold and/or hot. You are also exposed to the elements including sun, wind and rain which could be problematic or annoying. The park contains mosquitos, ticks and other bugs. Also, parks can be dangerous depending on which park we frequent [4].

08. Parks are being more populated with people (and especially annoying children) now that the Pokemon Go game has encouraged venturing to neighborhood parks. Kids are loud and obnoxious. They would negatively impact my experience.

9. There are many dangers of meeting people from the internet that you do not know. These include scams, frauds, or exposure that puts you at risk. This is called "stranger danger" in the digital age due to potential predators or cons [5].

10. I have no interest in going to the park with Pro. Therefore, my attendance would be against my will or desire.

Conclusion

It would only be worthwhile to go to the park with Pro if it measured so on a cost-benefit analysis. By the end of this debate, I will measure the alleged pro's of going to the park with Pro vs. the potential (and guaranteed) cons. This will prove there are more negatives and/or risks to going to the park with Pro than not going to the park with Pro. Thank you.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.mayoclinic.org...
[4] http://www.backpacker.com...
[5] http://www.wndu.com...
Debate Round No. 2
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:
"I'm married, thus I don't make it a habit of going to the park with strange men by myself."

Under "Relationship" on Con's profile, Con has chosen to not answer. This is an indication of a lack of black and white "my husband only" mentality. I assume Con may be into swinging or being premiscuous in her action. Con looks to have secular beliefs/lack of beliefs, thus "cheating on your husband" or "getting around on the side" is not neccessarily "immoral". It's simply a biologically driven choice stimulated by electrical signals interpreted by the brain. If Con cheats or gets around, Con has not done anything damning or wrong if Con chooses to associate her "morality" in another way. Examples? Homosexuals do not deem homosexuality as "wrong". Muslims do not deem multiple wives as "wrong". Thus, Con may not deem meeting bronto at the park as "wrong".

If others disagree with Con going to meet bronto at the park well...

"Let them grumble; that is how it is going to be." -- Anne Boelyn

*

There is a reason that women love romance novels. There are, however, more women in America today reading romance novels." These women, half married and half single, support the billion dollar industry, according to the Houston-based nonprofit, Romance Writers of America (RWA)."

Psychologist Dr. Julia Slattery, author of Finding the Hero in Your Husband, says there are similarities between what happens to a woman when she reads a romance novel and what happens to a man when he views pornography.

There is a neurochemical element with men and visual porn, but an emotional element with women and these novels," she writes.

http://acculturated.com...

The point? If bronto were to strike the right emotion with Con, she would be heavily biologically persuaded to go to the park with bronto. Attraction is not a choice, and this emotional connection would put Con and bronto in a biological quantum entanglement, if you will. Con would have no divine or spiritual reason to not "cheat" or be "adventurous" being an Atheist. She would make the rules that she feels apply.

*

Con:
"There are also other things I could do with my time including make money, have sex, or do something that I definitively and wholeheartedly enjoy."

By this statement Con is using a freudian slip. Con mentions sex to bronto, a complete stranger, releasing her true, subconscious desires.

*

Con:
"For example, I know he appears to be conservative which is very off-putting. I can assume that we would not have a lot in common to talk about or experience pleasurably together."

I do not list myself as Conservative on my profile because I am not. I can even provide examples:

In this debate, I do not condemn homosexuals or the LGBT community and even offer support for the victims of the Orlando shooting. Why? I have no right to judge when I myself fall short.

http://www.debate.org...

In this thread that I created, I want a Moderate party started.

http://www.debate.org...

In this thread, I suggested voting for Hillary if certain things happened.

http://www.debate.org...

And...when I engaged Con on Barack Obama recently, we both agreed that he wasn't the greatest. When she posed her thoughts on Trump I engaged her politely and did not challenge her assessment, but listened to her, even referring to her opinion as "interesting".

Con:
"I don't like Obama. I didn't vote for Obama. And Obama will be gone soon anyway."

www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/90174

On post #16, Con accuses me of possibly being a Libertarian.

*

Con:
"going to the park with a strange man"

Con called me strange. Conduct Pro. :-)

*

Con:
"which exhausts valuable resources"

Not if Pro covered the costs or did the traveling.

*

Con:
"Conflict encourages hostility, tension, resentment and potentially violence."

And in reality, sexual tension, which causes better, more passionate sexual encounters according to experts.

http://www.artofflirting.com...

---

(Video example:)

http://youtu.be...

---

Con:
"I can also assume that Pro wouldn't approve of my friends, lifestyle, individual traits or values."

I doubt it. I'm not a man who claims any moral highground on others. Challenging, sassy, and fun? I am.

*

Con:
"Attending the park with Pro might also induce in me a Fear of Missing Out or FoMO"

Or, it "might" be:

-Intoxicating
-Passionate
-Inspiring
-Magical
-Intellectually stimulating
-Exciting
-Wonderful
-Romantic
-Dreamy
-Satisfying

http://www.psychology-solution.com...
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Pro.

My opponent notes that because I do not have my relationship status listed on my profile, it is an indication that my marriage not monogamous. Of course, this does not take into consideration the fact that I have also chosen not to share my profession, age, ethnicity or income. Thus it is more reasonable to presume that I have simply chosen not to share information about myself, rather than make assumptions about the status or nature of each answer - for most of Pro's hypothesis are neither true nor verifiable. Take for instance the fact that Pro has repeatedly referred to my husband, even though he may be wrong and I might have a wife. More about that later.

His entire analysis regarding the morality of my actions (in hanging out with Pro) assume my partner's views or secular beliefs influence my decisions. While that may or may not be true, the decisions or views would still be mine, and thus are legitimately good reasons to not act against my desires or well-being. Furthermore, even if sexual activity was promoted by biology, it would not necessarily change the moral status of adultery. Rape is also driven by biological impulse, yet it requires force which is why it is illegal and immoral. Similarly, attending the park with Pro would require force.

My opponent then goes on to describe how women appreciate romance novels. He writes, "If bronto were to strike the right emotion with Con, she would be heavily biologically persuaded to go to the park with bronto. Attraction is not a choice, and this emotional connection would put Con and bronto in a biological quantum entanglement, if you will. Con would have no divine or spiritual reason to not 'cheat' or be 'adventurous' being an Atheist. She would make the rules that she feels apply."

First and foremost, atheists can ascribe to objective standards of morality [1]. This includes but is not limited to Objectivism. Second, Pro assumes an attraction is potential between he and I, though that is extremely unlikely - especially considering the fact that I am a lesbian. Thus when Pro writes, "Con is using a freudian slip. Con mentions sex to bronto, a complete stranger, releasing her true, subconscious desires" we can see how painfully and embarrassingly misguided his assumptions are. Indeed by referring to "sex I would enjoy," I was specifically NOT referring to sex with bronto.

Pro mentions that he is not conservative and highlights several examples of him posting from a (seemingly) pro-liberalish standpoint. That begs the question of whether or not he would support guns. Indeed my wife and I are gun enthusiasts, as evidenced by our wedding cake [2]. We strongly believe in the second amendment and the right to self-defense. When Pro suggests that tension between us might turn into sexual tension, it makes me feel uncomfortable. This increases the likelihood that I might falsely accuse him and/or react violently to a presumed sexual advance. Considering I usually have at least one type of weapon on me, this might not turn out well for Pro's best interest.

My opponent claims that because I have referred to him as "strange" I have lost conduct points. Indeed the definition of strange is "not previously visited, seen, or encountered; unfamiliar or alien" which absolutely describes Pro accurately, and thus is not a breach or loss of conduct [3].

Pro also claims that if he did the traveling, transportation costs would not be an issue. Yet valuable resources would still be extended on my end, most notably time. Pro has dropped my most significant contention in this debate - the opportunity cost. By hanging out with Pro, I could not be doing other things that not only definitely give me pleasure (whereas hanging out with Pro might not), but also even if I did enjoy hanging out with Pro, I would presumably enjoy hanging out with some other person/s MORE. For instance, since I appreciate sex, I would love to spend some free time having sex. Yet I have absolutely and unabashedly have no desire to have sex with Pro whatsoever, so spending time with him would interfere on other/better opportunities. Thus even if I do appreciate spending time with Pro very much, there are still more preferable alternatives.

In the last round, my opponent claims that he often does not cast moral judgment upon others. And yet he's highlighted several threads where he made some moral claims against certain politicians and ideologies. This means that Pro might lack intelligence or integrity. If he is a dishonest person, it strongly increases my potential risk in spending time with a strange man. Please extend my arguments about "stranger danger" in the digital world; an argument which my opponent has dropped.

In his proactive arguments, my opponent suggests that women like strong, passionate, caring, muscular and funny men. However I have proven that I don't like men (sexually) at all, thus hanging out with a man in particular is not necessarily exciting or enticing to me. This might change Pro's desire or interest in spending time with me as well. Pro notes that by going to the park with him, we could spend time talking about our ideological differences. Yet this is not something that we must go to the park to do. Indeed, by Pro's own quotation, he and I have already discussed politics and other beliefs. So why would going to the park be preferable? In the last round, I stated many potential issues with going to the park, both pragmatically, physically and theoretically.

[1] http://www.atheismandthecity.com...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] https://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 3
brontoraptor

Pro

"Take for instance the fact that Pro has repeatedly referred to my husband, even though he may be wrong and I might have a wife. More about that later."

A female, female, bronto 3-some would be a nontypical occurence for Con. Or would it?

If it is typical Con would be in her comfort zone. If this is not typical for Con, she would have a fun and exciting adventure.

--

Con:
"Rape is also driven by biological impulse, yet it requires force which is why it is illegal and immoral."

Con has given a false assessment of a chosen subjective morality. In Islam, raping infidels is moral in the cause of humiliating the infidel/enemies of Allah(google it), thus Con is arbitrarily referencing "Christian morality". Atheism cannot claim morality because all action is biological, and simply neutral acts of survival of the fittest.

--

Con:
"Similarly, attending the park with Pro would require force."

Maybe not. If alcohol or drugs was involved, Con might willingly go.

--

Con:
"especially considering the fact that I am a lesbian."

I like Lesbians...with whipped cream. Lesbianism is not restrained simply to girl on girl, and usually involves some sense of "masculinity", like another male, or a vibrater or dildo. A lesbian can also be bisexual. Within the liberal construct of excepting others as they are, Con should really love me as I am, be politically correct towards my sexuality, and in the interest of diversity, equality, and multiculturism, go to the park with me.

--

Con:
When Pro suggests that tension between us might turn into sexual tension, it makes me feel uncomfortable."

Sexual tension is uncomfortable, hence the name. This is a sign that Con sees me as a "sexual threat". Why? Because Con wonders if I could scratch that itch in a way her partner cannot. This is exampled by the concept that I know how to work a vibrater and my unit to a squirting climax and am actually trained in this technique. You are not about to pee Con. That is something else you are feeling. Wink wink. Nod nod.

--

Con:
"Considering I usually have at least one type of weapon on me."

But she obviously would not use it on someone who is in the actionary procedure of making her squirt. Otherwise she is insane, and her argument is invalid by guilt of insanity.

--

Con:
"By hanging out with Pro."

This is a false assessment because? No one does not have fun with me in real life, orgasm is normal, and bronto is endowed like the stereotypical mule. I actually had a lesbian work under me a few years back. Her and her partner had 7 different "exchanges". Why? I gave equal attention to the masculine and the feminine partners. She knew I was cool, would not judge, and was fun to drink with, among other things, but I plead the fifth.

--

Con:
"Yet I have absolutely and unabashedly have no desire to have sex with Pro whatsoever."

Con is guessing. I could have been a female to Con's prior knowledge in other rounds. I also could be a male who is rather "pretty" or even a transgender or fits some unknown biological variable in Con's sexuality that she is not even aware of. Con in theory could look at me, see something she has never seen before, and say, "I don't know exactly what I am looking at, but I like it and want to partake of this new pie."

--

Con:
"Please extend my arguments about "stranger danger" in the digital world; an argument which my opponent has dropped."

Con likes danger and has morbid curiosity. If it were not true, Con would not be here in the midst of this debate. Con came into the debate knowing I am the biggest troll on the forum, and conciously chose to sniff me out.

--

Con:
"However I have proven that I don't like men (sexually) at all."

But it is a well known fact that lesbian couples tend to be 2 different "types", thus her partner might want a piece of me. Thus, due to wanting to please her mate, Con is obligated to wrap me in a bow and see if her partner is inteterested sober, then find out if she is interested intoxicated, to fulfill Con's partners' needs.

--

Con:
"hanging out with a man in particular is not necessarily exciting or enticing to me."

I could be bisexual or a female with a large vibrater or dildo. I could be an unknown phenomenon as well. If Con's partner is a compliment to her, as in "opposites attract", her partner very likely would be interested with a bronto 5000 deluxe with a cherry on top sundae. And...if Con truely cares for her partner, she should want to find any unorthodxed way possible to please her partner.

Bronto makes a great Christmas gift. Con could wrap me up in a box. When Con's partner sees me burst out like an alien from the box, my how surprised she would be! "My very own "temporary bronto!" she would squeal.

Because of this Con becomes godlike. She is the best partner in the world.

A final point. Con could claim a trophy. She would be the one who satisfied and conquered the biggest and most feared troll on debate.org, a monumental feat. Con would kill many, many birds with one stone. She would satisfy her lovers' side needs, punish bronto in fetish style, get a monumental victory in dominating bronto, and she herself might be pleased "deeply". What's to lose? Just a few fluids. I like fluids. Con likes fluids. It would be illogical for Con to deny herself of possibly the greatest sexual encounter of her or her partners' lives, or maybe both. And Con would have a lifetime variable she could always squeeze into the equation when the sex got boring to spice things up, and it would be perfect because bronto would satisfy them and himself, then disappear into the night.
Danielle

Con

Per the agreed upon terms of the debate, my opponent has completely broken the rules. This is not only a loss of conduct point, but perhaps loss of arguments as well for he has utilized an entire extra round for discussion which is not permitted. I will not be reading or responding to his last round. This round (4) is where he and I are supposed to post something that makes me sad. Pro failed to name something that makes him sad, and it's too late to follow up in the next round (which is reserved for a different topic).

Alzheimer's Disease makes me sad.
Debate Round No. 4
brontoraptor

Pro

Conjoined twinsmakes me sad.

What makes me happy is snuggles in a warm house on a cold night. Puppies. Kittens. A 30 pack. Cooking seafood and pasta. Giggling like a child. Tickling midgets.
Danielle

Con

Pro has broken the rules again. In Round 5, we are supposed to "Tell each other something that made/makes us happy." Yet not only did my opponent provide something that also makes him SAD, but he mentioned several things that make him happy. Meanwhile, the rules called for us to list somethinG, not some thingS.

Caribbean beaches make me happy.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Udel// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct points to Con for Pro breaking the rules in 2 separate rounds. Arguments to Con because Pro dropped Con's points on the opportunity cost. Con proved that she doesn't want to go to the park with Pro, so her forced attendance might be immoral and she also proved that she has better things to do with her time. Con proved she has no interest in going to the park with Pro, and Pro just kept saying she might like it. Con explained why she probably wouldn't like it. Her arguments were more convincing because she gave strong reasons like it would cause problems in her personal life, mental health and maybe his or her physical safety. We can't consider the arguments in the round where Pro cheated by posting an extra round. Con mentioned the danger of meeting a stranger online which Pro could not deny. She mentioned cost and things she would have to give up. The dagger, she mentioned that anything they could do at the park that she would appreciate, they could also do online.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote is sufficient, explaining both the argument and conduct points in detail and assessing points from both sides.
************************************************************************
Posted by Hayd 10 months ago
Hayd
lol love this debate
Posted by brontoraptor 10 months ago
brontoraptor
Con wants some little brontos.
Posted by brontoraptor 10 months ago
brontoraptor
I'm a tucan when we both know one can.
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
i am the last leaf on the last tree to shed its leaves at fall
Posted by Amedexyius 10 months ago
Amedexyius
I feel like Pro wants to be the new vi_spex.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 10 months ago
RainbowDash52
brontoraptorDanielleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because Pro broke the round 4 rule. I thought Con had better arguments but I am too lazy to give an arguments RFD, so I will stick with conduct. I thought the Pokemon Go argument was funny though.
Vote Placed by Udel 10 months ago
Udel
brontoraptorDanielleTied
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: Conduct points to Con for Pro breaking the rules in 2 separate rounds. Arguments to Con because Pro dropped Con's points on the opportunity cost. Con proved that she doesn't want to go to the park with Pro, so her forced attendance might be immoral and she also proved that she has better things to do with her time. Con proved she has no interest in going to the park with Pro, and Pro just kept saying she might like it. Con explained why she probably wouldn't like it. Her arguments were more convincing because she gave strong reasons like it would cause problems in her personal life, mental health and maybe his or her physical safety. We can't consider the arguments in the round where Pro cheated by posting an extra round. Con mentioned the danger of meeting a stranger online which Pro could not deny. She mentioned cost and things she would have to give up. The dagger, she mentioned that anything they could do at the park that she would appreciate, they could also do online.