The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Why Nice Guys Have Better Relationships Than Jerks!

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
grandma-complex has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2017 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 730 times Debate No: 102697
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




There's this misconception that "nice guys" are doomed to have a harder time finding success in life than most. Thus, why the phrase "nice guys finish last" was born. I think that's a BS. From personal experience, I can attest to the idea that "being nice" is actually a benefit and essential to living a great life, if that's what you desire.

Studies have shown women find men more attractive when they're doing something kind or generous. For example, ask yourself this. Whether the following is male or female, who would you rather date or be in a relationship with?

Person A) Narcissistic, selfish, apathetic, dishonest, and completely rude in conversations; BUT makes six figures a year (over $100,000), owns his own car and house, high position in work, and has PACKED OUT parties.

Persona B) Trustworthy, selfless, loyal, kind, understanding, good listener, compassionate, supportive, and of course a "nice guy"; BUT he lives an apartment, typically takes the bus the work because his car breaks down a lot, struggles to maintain a steady income, and most of the time doesn't go out much since he works so much.

See, a lot of times, nice guys are able to hold relationships longer than jerks. Sure, girls may be attracted more to "bad boys" but that instant attraction will soon wear off and, when it does, the girl moves on. Before long, she'll get tired and want someone more substance. With nice guys, you have a ear to speak to, you'll have an unlimited amount of support, you'll have someone who's willing to give you all the attention you need, and even if he wants to be done with you he won't break up with you over text -- he'll tell you to your face. Also, nice guys make better fathers than jerks.

Understandably so, most girls don't want a long term relationship at young ages and desire "flings" over being tied-down. But what's one thing you tend to hear about those women? "These men ain't crap." Why is that? Because, a lot of times, these girls are too young to know what they want and that's because, most of the time, they don't even know who THEY are. Eventually, when they get sick of getting their heart broken, they choose to settle down with who? That's right. A NICE guy.


Whew, this is going to be an interesting debate. I'd like to thank Pro for instigating the debate on the time-held truth that nice guys finish last (and also the distraction from the ongoing tornado watch in my area, eek). With that, here are my arguments:

Now, the problem with Pro's argument is they define "nice guy" (NG from now on) incorrectly. As a woman, I hear the term thrown around all the time, but this is the commonly-held definition by most women: a man who is kind, generous, compassionate, and a good listener.. who then expects compensation for his social services. He lacks the confidence to put himself out there and instead preys on those he already knows, typically fumbling over himself or being over confident, and when a woman rejects him, immediately insults her.

Neither persona A nor B truly capture the true NG.

Persona A is what people refer to as an "alpha male" or "bad guy" even though the terms is also just as ridiculous as NGs. An alpha male is confident, self serving, and comes off as narcissistic. Pro even threw in the fact that this persona makes over $100,000 a year, has a car, a high position at work, and then somehow has time to throw "packed out parties." This guy is a narcissist.

Persona B is not a NG Persona B seems to be a nice person, not a NG. He's selfless, loyal, kind, etc and seems to be down on his luck financially. This doesn't make him a NG. This makes him a down-on-his-economic-luck nice dude.

What's the difference between the good people NGs think they are and the narcissists they hate so much?

Confidence. A man comfortable in his own skin is more attractive than any man complaining about the unfairness of the sort. Persona A obviously has a well paying job, so he must have some good attributes. He has a steady income, a paid off car, and a house? Check financially secure and able to provide off. Packed out parties? Obviously someone thinks he's likable if everyone in their mother is at their party.

A woman is going to look for a man who is able to provide for both her and the potential family they have. Some dude with tons of money, a car, and a house is probably able to do that. A woman is also going to look for a man who can protect her and her family, and a man confident in his abilities is probably going to be able to do that. The difference is in what the two men present.

Will a woman also enjoy a man described as Persona B? Absolutely, but they're not going to be as initially attractive. Persona B might be the altruistic man she's looking for, but that doesn't mean she's going to find him, and that also doesn't mean that he's what she needs. A man who isn't making much money and relies on public transportation but is "nice" doesn't always foot the bill. Combine that with the fact that he doesn't put himself out there too much? It's probably not going to happen, and unfortunately, he's going to turn into a NG.

A good man will be able to hold a relationship if the conditions are right. "Jerks" can hold relationships well if they so wish to as a result of the sttributes I just named off, and of course, if there are problems, a woman could turn to one of her guy friends for emotional support. That's normal. The problem arises when good men descend into become a NG.

"These men ain't crap." Well, you're unfortunately going to find that most women agree. Being a woman is incredibly different from being a man, especially when men are attempting to pin you down as one thing and insisting they know better than you what you are and what you want. A woman can settle down with a NG, she might settle with a good man, or she might settle with a narcissist. That's her chocie.

But the reason women say "these men ain't crap" is that there is a continuum of men. One one side we have narcissists. These are the "alpha males" and "bad boys" women love so much. At the extreme of this side we have "f*ckboys," those who are tear apart a woman for her looks, destroy her confidence, and even sexually assault her. On the other side we have good men who unfortunately fall into being NGs when their good traits aren't given any recognition. They believe that being nice, listening, and being "nice" allows them to demand compensation. These men also can become "f*ckboys," as it's truly a circle.

Pro didn't intend to, but they've unfortunately made a very misogynistic generalization about women. They've infatilized women into being unable to truly know what they want or need. This is very much an NG argument used against women, and it's something women live with today.
Debate Round No. 1


First off, I want to thank Con for giving us a very insightful look into NGs. Also, if you don't mind, I'd like to continue referring to "nice guys" as NGs in my post too, all copyrights go to Con of course (lol). Here's my retort:

Con made some extremely good points, picking apart the "commonly-held definition of nice guys." I'll even go as far as to say she even opened my eyes on a few things, including the fact that although Persona A is a narcissist, he still has qualities that make him likable otherwise he would not pack out his parties. However, there are some major things my opponent didn't address (or accidentally overlooked) and I'd like to make them the focus of Round 2.

The majority of my opponent's post was spent deconstructing our society's view on what a NG is. As a result, she unintentionally made a pretty inaccurate generalization of NGs. Yes, they're kind, generous, compassionate, and good listeners, but she also said they're nice because they want something in return. In other words, they are NICE GUYS WITH AGENDAS! These men are the ones who say, "Hey I'll be really nice to this girl and it'll get her to have sex with me" and then turns into a jerk when he gets rejected. He starts thinking, "Well if girls don't like me being nice I'll be a douche instead" and then still gets rejected when he acts like a douche. Let me tell you, here and now, that these are NOT (I repeat NOT) nice guys. They are jerks, narcissists, or "f*ckboys" who know they can't maintain, let alone get into, a relationship unless they portray a NG.

Believe it or not, there are genuinely NGs out there. More than likely, it's one of those "guy friends" the women uses for emotional support when her relationship with a jerk isn't going well. What makes them genuinely nice though? Well, the true NGs aren't just nice to hot (or subjectively attractive) girls. They are nice to everyone: men, women, children, elderly, janitors, cops, priests, the annoying neighbor, random people who comment on Youtube videos, the guy who bags the groceries, and even your ex .... okay maybe NOT your ex, but you get the idea. They aren't just nice to hot girls and treat everyone else like crap. No, they're nice to everyone because, and catch this, they feel GOOD doing it. I can attest to this. I get great pleasure helping those who are struggling and seeing them reach a level of success. Sure, you can say I do it so I can get the praise of being the one who helped them, but how often does that happen? That's why I say NGs, at least the true ones, are selfless. Meaning, they don't expect anything in return; they just help people out because they like it.

Secondly, she mentioned the following in her post: "A good man will be able to hold a relationship if the conditions are right. "Jerks" can hold relationships well if they so wish to as a result of the attributes I just named off, and of course, if there are problems, a woman could turn to one of her guy friends for emotional support. That's normal."

I think it's clear that anybody can have a relationship. However, the question isn't "who has a better chance at getting a relationship" because, like Con so eloquently stated, it all depends on what the women wants and/or needs. The question is "who can have a BETTER relationship with women?" and that unfortunately was not addressed in her post. To answer that question, we first need to look at two questions people ask when defining a good relationship:

1) "How long does the relationship last?"

This is the WRONG question to ask. I've known people to stay in relationships for YEARS and hate every fiber of their companion's being. Why do they do it? Perhaps it's because they had a child, they need financial security, they need a roof over their heads, they have low self esteem and think no one else wants them, or maybe they feel like the jerk will become a what ... exactly. A nice guy. Case in point, Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee. In the 1990s, these two were married for years, even going as far as putting out a sex tape for the whole world to see. In 1998, Tommy Lee was arrested for spousal abuse, apparently kicking his wife, Pamela, while she held their child in her hands. You'd think she'd leave him after that, right? No! They got back together. Now, they eventually called it quits, but not before going through a series of reconciliations. It doesn't take a genius to know this is NOT a good relationship. It's very toxic. Just because it lasts long does not mean it's good.

2) "Is the relationship toxic or beneficial to the people involved?"

This is the RIGHT question to ask. I'd like to draw our attention to Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith. These two met one day in 1994 and started dating not too long afterwards, becoming his wife in 1997. It's been over 20 years and they are still going strong. Why? Here's a quote from Jada herself: "It"s not just about loving someone. It"s about understanding, acceptance and compassion." If you've seen his interviews, you'll know that Will Smith is without a doubt one of the nicest people in the world, even donning the name "Mr. Nice Guy" in the eyes of his Hollywood colleagues. For any beneficial relationship work, there are essentials you need and those essentials can only be provided by NGs. The kind of relationship where both partners are growing as both individuals and as lovers. The kind of relationship that inspires others to do better and even aim for something similar. Sure, you'll have bumps in the road, but the best people are able to work through it -- like the Smiths.

So yes, while there are some NICE GUYS WITH AGENDAS out there, not all NGs have agendas. With that said, nobody wants to live in misery and, 9 times out of 10, that's what you'll be getting with jerks.


To start out, I'd like to again thank Pro for the interesting points he made.

1- I'd like to reassert the more commonly held definition of a NG as one who suffers/profits from Nice Guy Syndrome. This is the current, most popular definition [1] [2] [3], and - wish it as women do that the NG definition Pro holds was true - it doesn't describe a NG. A NG is nice, kind, compassionate, patient, and fundamentally an instrumental personality used to guilt women into a continued relationship or sex.

I think I'll differentiate between NG and good men using GM vs NG from now on.

But there are a few holes in Pro's opening argument. First, are women truly using GM/NGs when they turn to them for emotional support? I doubt they have malicious intent in mind when they turn to someone (who just so happens to be a guy, if that's her sexual preference) to talk to. Isn't this something that friends do? Second, kind to everyone? Men, women, as*holes, people who denied him jobs, people who snubbed him, people who would gladly take their money and livelihood? Pro is describing a saint, and I can't say that someone so selfless exists. Sure, a GM can do kind things, but he's not just the paragon of saintitude and altruism. He doesn't have to be.

However Pro is describing a trait in NGs that makes them undesirable: they can be pushovers. Nice to everyone? Letting them walk all over them? That's not attractive in the least.

2- I'm going to have to concur with Pro on the first question he asks. Relationships can stand the test of time for all kinds of insidious and abusive, and that's (ironically) why it's good that the divorce rate is so high. But Pro also neglects the fact that women stay with abusive men for not just financial reasons or that she can fix them. For a brief example, since it is not entirely the subject of this debate: I often said I had an abusive relationship with my first job. I despised my job. But I occasionally had good days, and that unfortunately put within me the hope that it would get better. This is a mere fraction of the psyche of someone who experiences spousal abuse, but it is the most succinct way of putting it.

3- I also agree with Pro's second question. In fact, I think Will Smith's relationship with his wife is adorable (have you seen him just present her like he has no idea how on earth he got a woman like her? Goals). But he's not a NG. He's a GM.

Good men are not faultless. They are not unconditionally selfless. They may not even be the best listeners, nor always have time for you. But they are genuine. They have no ulterior motive, no sense of entitlement when it comes to their behavior. They are good at heart.

4- Now, knowing the two distinctions: NG vs "Jerks," Pro is entirely right that I didn't address which has the better relationship. I intend to rectify that now.

Remember that "Jerks" fall about on the same place as "alpha males/narcissists" on the Dudebro Continuum. The Jerk Pro outlined is "[n]arcissistic, selfish, apathetic, dishonest, and completely rude in conversations; BUT makes six figures a year (over $100,000), owns his own car and house, high position in work, and has PACKED OUT parties."

The NG definition most people accept is a pushover, listens and provides compassion for women in emotional need to get into their pants, and expects compensation for being nice.

Who has the better relationships?

Considering that being a NG is one of the first ways to get rejected (or guilt your way into a second date), Jerks win by default. They can provide for a woman, have previously shown that they are loaded, and probably have some likable trait as they've apparently got the party of the milennium at their house.

Since they are assertive and give a taste of danger and excitement, they're probably going to keep a woman longer. NGs fumble over themselves, self-aggrandize, and believe they're entitled to a woman by being nice. Jerks 1, NGs 0.

Debate Round No. 2


As we move into the third round, Con has put me in a very interesting position. I relish the challenge. You'll have to forgive me if I show a little passion in this post, but I'm considered a NG by many and I relate to a lot of things said in this debate. Let's see if I can bring it all home and end on a strong note.

My opponent made a fascinating proclamation stating that all the traits and attributes I used to describe NGs are actual traits of Good Men; while the traits I used to describe NICE GUYS WITH AGENDAS are what nice guys really are. These are two very subjective labels for two very different types of men. However, at the end of the day, the labels are irrelevant. Whether you call these men NGs, good men, saints, or NGs with an agenda -- let's remind ourselves what this debate is all about proving how any of these men will give you BETTER relationships than jerks and my final argument will explain why.

To start, let's look at the urban dictionary definition of a jerk. It states, "Jerks are selfish, manipulative bastards who see women as little more than sexual conquests to brag about to their buddies or mere objects that are there for their personal pleasure. As to ensure the post-sex breakup will be in their favor, Jerks often play the "sensitive guy" early on so the girl will make most of the moves on HIM, and after he's done with her and dumps her for some other girl just like her, he can make it look like she's at fault for coming on too strong, and consequently she'll take him back if he chooses to return for seconds."

What I find interesting is how the urban dictionary's definition is not that far off from Con's view on NGs. Both are manipulative, inauthentic predators who falsely portray themselves to women they desire so they can have sex with them and nothing more. Personally, if you ask me, I believe Con has unknowingly been describing jerks this entire time. You literally can insert NGs into that definition and it almost sounds like Con's view. Watch this:

"NGs are selfish, manipulative bastards who see women as little more than sexual conquests or mere objects that are there for their personal pleasure."

Oddly enough, that's how Con views nice guys in general. I can't agree with that. In fact, I think it's a grossly inaccurate view on NGs. In that same urban dictionary, here's what is said about nice guys: "A young male who will give up countless hours of his time listening to the problems of his very attractive female friends because they need someone to talk to." Now does that sound like anything Con's described as a NG? No, it doesn"t. This brings up a very irritating aspect about NGs that even I have deal with today. People have begun to associate jerks with NGs because too many jerks have worn "nice guy" clothing and confused women to the point they no longer know the difference. I believe it"s why NGs have such a bad reputation nowadays and, most of the time, are treated so poorly.

When I hear the term "pushover" used to describe NGs, you know what word I really hear? Harmless. To me, when I think of a jerk, I think of someone who does things with malice intention. A jerk will call you a "dirty slut" without feeling a hint of remorse for it. A NG will at least talk to you without using insults and try to resolve it with the least bit of confrontation necessary. Now, based off Person A in my Round 1 argument, it"s very easy to see how jerks can be attractive to women " temporarily. The attraction, however, doesn"t come from them as a person; it comes from what they have. So now, let"s take both my round one examples and flip them.

Person A) Narcissistic, selfish, apathetic, dishonest, and completely rude in conversations; but he also he lives an apartment, typically takes the bus the work because his car breaks down a lot, struggles to maintain a steady income, and most of the time doesn't go out much since he works so much.

Person B) Trustworthy, selfless, loyal, kind, understanding, good listener, compassionate, supportive, and of course a "nice guy"; but he also makes six figures a year (over $100,000), owns his own car and house, high position in work, and has PACKED OUT parties.

Which one is attractive now? Believe it or not, both examples do exists and are typically seen in older ages. Dwayne Johnson could easily pass as Person B and (although she's a woman) Rosie O'Donnell is a great example for Person A. NGs can provide for a woman, earn a steady income, and have wild parties at their houses too. The quality of life a person has isn't always determined by their character; it's also determined by work ethic and perseverance. On an even playing field, if both jerks and NGs earned the same amount of money and could provide, you would then have to choose based off their character. No offense, but if a woman chooses a jerk who is, (as urban dictionary describes) insensitive, selfish, ignorant, cocky, inconsiderate and does stupid things with no remorse over a NG; you're asking for trouble and will most likely regret your decision not too long afterwards.

One last point I want to make before I bow out. This notion that NGs "fumble" when they speak to girls. I am the living embodiment of "fumbling" my words in front of girls. I've done it all my life. Each rejection, no matter how painful it was, has made me stronger and helped me learn more about myself. Eventually, talking became second nature. Have I had many girlfriends? Not really, but I can say I have been in relationship and each one had substance. It's funny knowing, even now, 3 out of the 4 ex girlfriends I've had still speak to me. Despite our relationship not working out, they still see value in me and will every so often shoot me a message either to check on me or ask for advice. That's how you know I left in good impression on them. If I was a jerk, I seriously doubt they would have nothing to do with me. So even though my loving relationships with these women didn't work out, I still maintained a GOOD relationship with them as friends. How many jerks do you know can say that?

In closing, I want all NGs out there to know it's possible to be authentic and nice at the same time, and to have good boundaries -- but it is also very difficult. There will be days, as Con has explained, women will overlook you and even attempt to use you. Do not let that change you. If you are genuinely a nice person, you stay true to yourself and you'll find someone who appreciates you for who you are. Jerks may get the girl temporary, but when she's ready she'll eventually get with a nice guy and realize things are so much better.

Thank you for your time.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
This is true. My husband is considered a nice guy. He happens to be more assertive than other nice guys, but i can confirm he's having a lot more sex and a lot more love than the jerks out there.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.