The Instigator
cheesedingo1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Thaddeus
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

You can not get a girl purely on being Kind to them. NO TO TIP#2!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Thaddeus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,079 times Debate No: 22920
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

cheesedingo1

Pro

I challenge Thaddeus to a debate because of this forum:
http://www.debate.org...
bring it on, Thadeus!

NO TO TIP #2!
Thaddeus

Con

Clarification for terms of debate. By purely being nice to them, we mean as a strategy - all other things being held ceteris paribus.
This means that though one is purely being nice, one doesn't cease to eat or drink or breath just because these activities do not fall into the category of nice, nor does one's personality change except by this one criteria we are holding as the variable; being nice.

Therefore, someone who is a confident person, employing this strategy, is still considered to be a confident person.

"You" in relation to the debate shall be considered to mean anyone, not the user known as Thaddeus specifically, unless cheesedingo wants to argue that the user known as Thaddeus can't get a girl by being nice.

Therefore, Cheesedingo's burden of proof is to show that no-one can get a girl by being nice as a strategy. Get in this case means to have a relationship with them

Anything else?

Oh yes, no trolling, semantics and DANCE MAGIC DANCE
Debate Round No. 1
cheesedingo1

Pro

Sorry for the delay, I had 6 other debates to do over the past two days.

Anyway, I am here negate Tip #2, stating that you can get a girl by purely being nice to them. THIS IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE.

This debate is mainly from the forum page I provided in my first argument. My sources are the many posts provided on this forum. If you are unsure that that's where I got them, check it out for yourself.

Anyway, I will plan out a scinereo. You are walking along, side by side with a friend youve had a crush on for several months, and, then, she turns to you. She looks into your eyes. Your heart starts beating rapidly. She grabs your hand. You start sweating. You can tell your face is turning red. She then utters 5 words no man should hear: "You are a great FRIEND". BOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Don't you see? If you are really nice to someone, you will be what some call "friendzoned".

Many of you Im sure have experienced this. Quoting Yourfavoritemartian, "Friend zone is like the mafia, youll NEVER GET OUT". These words could never be truer. IF you are purely nice to someone, without doing anything else (which is the strategy, thad), you will never get the girl. From past expereince, when you become friends with someone, and then your always there for her, always nice to her, she will not want to go out with you because she see's only a friend in you.

They won't think of you as a boyfriend or someone they will go out with, but someone who they can look to in a time of distress.

Its almost like....... They treat you like...... THAT GAY BEST FRIEND.

Im not saying any of you that are stuck in this scenario are gay, but women who friendzone you think of you as someone they wouldn't go out with. That means you will forever be thier friend, and you will never get the girl and ride off into the sunset.

Im sorry, I have to rush to a meeting at my job, so this is all I will get to today. I will have a more in depth argument next round.

Thank you.
Thaddeus

Con

Whilst I completely conceed that in general "being nice" is not a particularly potent strategy, I will argue that it is possible for one to get a girl by being purely nice. I shall therefore provide various scenarios where solely implementing the strategy of being nice would allow someone to get any girl (non-specific)

Reasons why;

1) If you are really good looking, famous or rich or all three
There are plently of shallow girls out there. A chap with these qualities could get a girl no matter what strategy he employed. Therefore, being nice might even be considered a bonus!

2) Girls are as varied as the moles on my bottom
Though there are some generalisations that can be made for getting girls, they are only looking at the middle section of the bell curve. There are as many outliers as gays in Brighton. If you are trying to maximise performance with girls in general one can make statements like "the nice strategy is unfavourable", but cannot claim it is impossible to get a girl by employing the nice strategy. Some girls actually dig that sort of thing. Some girls also like men who dress up as pokemon. The point is there are a lot of girls out there, and making any absolute generalisation is obviously going to be false.

3) Being purely nice as a strategy does not preclude the most important criteria for getting girls; confidence
It is perfectly possible to be nice and confident. Confidence is the key attribute required to getting girls. It is not a strategy, but a character trait, so it can be employed in addition to being nice. (We assumed someone employing the strategy was to be held ceteris paribus - therefore his character traits won't have changed)


To finish; I call the friendzone the challenge zone. Rise to the challenge and beat it to death. With bees!
Debate Round No. 2
cheesedingo1

Pro

I thank Thaddeus for his rebutle. But, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE! TIP #2 IS WRONG!!!!!!!

Attacks on Thaddeus' case:

1) My opponent is agreeing with me. You can get a girl many other ways, and you don't have to be nice to get the girl. You can me rich, good looking, and/or famous, and be a total douche, and STILL get the girl.

2) You must not have many moles, because most girls fall into only a couple categories.


NOW FOR THE CATEGORIES!!!!

Category 1) Rich B!tch. Up-tight, mean, only in it for the money, and doesn't give a crap if your nice.

C2) Insecure. They think they're not worth anyone, so they will hook up with anyone so that they will have more self esteem. Hell, they'll probably date someone because they're a jerk, and they think that it will make them popular. So being nice won't matter.

C3) TAKEN. Those perfect chicks that are nice to everyone, but they have a BF. So, being really really nice would only creep them out.

Now, back to his arguments.

3) Yes, confidence does help, but as I said, as stated in the resolution, you cannot get a girl PURELY on being nice to them. sorry.

And the friendzone isn't a challenge zone. It's a hell zone. It's like being stuck in a pit of superglue. It's impossible to get out. Bees would only enrageth the female sex and further dig you deeper into the friendzone, or the freakzone, cause you threw bees at them.



So, if you want to get a girl, as stated by my opponent,

BE FAMOUS.

BE GOOD LOOKING.

HAVE LOTS OF CASH.


Thank you.
Thaddeus

Con

It seems my opponent didn't read the terms laid out for him. The strategy was being nice - your character and various qualities one might have are being held ceteris paribus, whatever they maybe - they may be rich and confident.

He fails to refute arguments 1 and 3 on this basis. For the record, I've beaten the friendzone a few times.

Also his refutation of 2 is obviously false. To the women reading this; think of yourself and your friends; Are you a rich bitch, insecure or taken? Are these the sole ways you can define yourself? Men, ask the same questions of your friends and sisters. The answers are very likely to be no. There are a great deal of types of women. It seems my opponents main issue may be that he has not had very much contact with women, considering his opinions of their variety.


So to conclude, he drops my arguments about how some people can employ the nice strategy sucessful, because of their other attributes (note differentiation from strategy and attributes). This concedes the argument. It is possible for some people, by being just nice, not using any tricks or games or the like, to get a girl.
His refuation to point 2 was laughably weak and simplistic.

The resolution is negated. Thank-you.
Debate Round No. 3
cheesedingo1

Pro

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for his arguments. But, sadly, He too hasn't read the terms laid out for him. As stated in the argument, one cant get a girl PURELY by being nice to them. It is defined by Merriam-Webster online dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) as "to a full extent : totally". My opponent says that people keep their prior traits and being kind is a strategy used. But we are PURELY focusing on the "Nice" aspect to this argument. Therefore, my points on 1 and 3 are still strong, and I assume he agrees with the rest of argument one and two that don't have to do with having prior traits in my first argument.

As for his argument on my second argument, I guess I failed to mention the 4th category: Misunderstood.

This is to all the ladies out there.

Ladies, do you fall into any of the 3 categories that I provided? Be honest. Try to see yourself from someone elses shoes. I'm not saying your a rich b!tch. You could be insecure or already have that special someone. But, if you don't, you probably fit into one of the 4th category of misunderstood. You try to get that special someone, but they only see you as a frien and don't see your potential. They don't see you as someone who they would go out with. I'm not saying your any less than any other girl in any way, shape, or form. The reason this is relevant, is because men will not try to get you to like them, because they do not like you. They will not try the "being nice" strategy to begin with.

If you don't fall into any of these categories, then you are God's gift to men, so call me! ;D

In conclusion, my opponent has failed to attack a lot of my argument and has only said things like how my arguments are "laughably weak and simplistic." My argument is still strong.

Nontheless, I had a great debate with Thaddeus, and I look forward to more debates with him in the future. I thank all of the voters for reading these arguments, and a very special thank you to all the ladies for reading our arguments (mostly mine).

CHEESEDINGO1 IS OUT.

VOTE FOR CON! NO TO TIP #2!!!!
Thaddeus

Con

I would like to begin by refering my opponent to the clarifications for the terms of debate:

"Clarification for terms of debate. By purely being nice to them, we mean as a strategy - all other things being held ceteris paribus.
This means that though one is purely being nice, one doesn't cease to eat or drink or breath just because these activities do not fall into the category of nice, nor does one's personality change except by this one criteria we are holding as the variable; being nice.
Therefore, someone who is a confident person, employing this strategy, is still considered to be a confident person.

"You" in relation to the debate shall be considered to mean anyone, not the user known as Thaddeus specifically, unless cheesedingo wants to argue that the user known as Thaddeus can't get a girl by being nice.

Therefore, Cheesedingo's burden of proof is to show that no-one can get a girl by being nice as a strategy. Get in this case means to have a relationship with them"

These conditions were agreed upon prior to the beginning of the debate (see comments).

Therefore my contentions about arguments 1 & 3 stand. I can neither confirm nor deny agreeing with the rest of his arguments relating to my arguments 1 & 3, as he made no others.

Whilst I did make little attack on your assertions regarding argument 2, this is because it was unnecessary to. YOu made some obviously false assertions (girls fall into one of three catagories - more or less self-evidently false unless you have only met 3 girls and that none of the girls who fall into these catagories will be interested in a "nice guy"). I merely had to refer the readers to their own experience to disprove such assertions.

To summarize:
1) Being purely nice does not preclude having other desirable attributes aside from your strategy: being wealthy or good looking.

My opponent claimed that these attributes were part of a strategy - this claim goes against the terms laid out at the beginning of the debate which he explicitly agreed to (see comments)

2) Girls are very varied. Whilst there may be relatively few girls only looking for a nice girl, they certainly exist, due to the sheer number of girls.

My opponent made the assertion that girls aren't varied. My counter source is the readers intelligence and ability to look outside. It is more or less self evident that exist some very different people. There may also be several norms and stereotypes, but people who do not meet these criteria can easily be found. I assert that as surely as there is a girl somewhere out there who digs guys who speak solely in Haikus, there is a girl out there who only cares about how nice you are.

3) Confidence is an characteristic as opposed to a strategy and is the most crucial element in "getting" a girl. One can be "purely nice" whilst still being confident and self assured.

I concede that this is a fairly similar argument to 1. However, it is the most crucial aspect of getting a girl. As being nice and confident are not mutually exclusive, one can assume that someone who is naturally confident and also employs the strategy of being purely nice has a fairly good chance of getting a girl.

My opponent has utterly failed to refute any of these assertions and meet his burden of proof (to prove the impossibility of getting a girl by solely employing the strategy of being nice) sothe only choice is to vote for Con.

Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
If it isn't clear by the quite weak structure of my argument, I was drunk at the time.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
I'll post my argument soonish.
Posted by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
DANCE MAGIC DANCe!!!!!!
Posted by cheesedingo1 5 years ago
cheesedingo1
I accept. Bring it.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
If you accept these terms I will accept the challenge.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Clarification for terms of debate. By purely being nice to them, we mean as a strategy - all other things being held ceteris paribus? Not that, since you are purely being nice, you no longer cease to eat or drink or breath because they do not fall into the category of nice, nor does your personality change except by this one criteria we are holding as the variable; being nice.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Fine
Posted by cheesedingo1 5 years ago
cheesedingo1
I'll Give it to Thaddeus then. Is that ok?
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
I am involved in four other debates at the moment. I will accept this debate in a week or so.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
we'll*
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
cheesedingo1ThaddeusTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins based on the "varied" analysis. Girls cannot be stereotyped into categories and told what they like. Con correctly notes that there are girls who specifically examine "niceness" when they are determining if they should be in a relationship with someone. Pro's case amounts to a few assertions; he has no actual evidence that it is not possible for a single girl in existence to fall for nice guys. Easy Con win.
Vote Placed by Ixaax 5 years ago
Ixaax
cheesedingo1ThaddeusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF? Utter failure on Pro's behalf otherwise. Easy win to Con.