Instigator / Pro

It is preferable for beautiful women to actively go after a career than go after a man


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

The women are heterosexual

Round 1
I will paste my arguments from last time as my previous opponent did not really counter them head on. 

A career is more successful nowadays. Women are already more than half the work force. It's perfectly normal for the women to go after a successful career. On the other hand, most times women don't seem convinced by a marriage -- if they can even get one. This site shows mostly women are the ones that try to go for a divorce. As you can see men are very disappointing to try going after. Indeed, even Wisestep is able to list 35 reasons why women should go after their career. To avoid Gish Gallop, I will only list the strongest ones:
1) earning of money. Now, I will admit that there is somewhat of a wage gap problem, however, a rigorous study notes that a lot of people fail to explain the precise reasoning why women are actually paid less (other factors are at large), and especially since this woman is attractive, it seems less likely that the boss will dislike this person who is willing to go after a career rather than a man.
2) Benefits provided by company: Most companies give you a lot of insurance that would otherwise be tough to pay for. One employee benefit site lists, among many other programs: 
Unless Con can prove the man would be willing to give this much, then con loses. Consider that, the prompt is woman chasing after man, so this would take a very long time. An article says it would take 134 days for the average woman to say the key three words. Let's just cut it down by half, since she's beautiful, eh? Even then, even with the average wage of $45,000 per year, 65 days is still around 2 months. If you chase after a man, you'll have to pressure him to pay for your meals, and even then you'll exhaust time and effort on an uncertain result. Indeed, how can you justify something with an incredibly ambiguous and future gain? If the beautiful woman does not go after a career, that means the man would have to pay for them both eventually, raising standards and making it incredibly difficult to find the correct partner.

Also, I will say that Con must prove that the woman must make the effort for the man. In modern society we see men going after women all the time. Therefore it would be very easy if she wanted a partner, and hence she would not need to go after the man, the man would come to her, especially if she is beautiful. If con thinks women not going after men will result in extinction, that is absurd. He would need to prove that men do not chase after women in this alternate world.

conclusion: Employment offers very fast benefit and can encourage the woman to build her social network, improving her self esteem in her skills and her independence. Chasing after a man is risky and takes a long time. Her beauty also makes it more likely she is going to get shallow relationships and one night stands rather than a true relation. Beautiful women should chase after career, not after men.

According to Pro, beautiful women should sacrifice romance so that they can earn some quick cash in a boring company job. I think otherwise. 

The crux of Pro’s argument is the idea that beautiful women should maximize the amount of money they have via careers. In effect, Pro wants women to replace romance, love, and family with money. This argument fails for two reasons: (1) because more money doesn't satisfy our deepest human needs, and (2) because even if you choose money as your ultimate good, beautiful women can maximize money faster by seducing a rich man.

(1) Our deepest intuitions tells us that life is about more than money, it’s about love, family, friendship, spirituality, community, and much more. That’s why we drop everything to be at the bedside of a dying loved one. More money can't satisfy our deepest needs, especially our need for connection. And the research bears that out, showing across multiple studies that people who choose money are less happy than people who choose more romantic values. See, for example,

My argument is simple, then: focusing life around romance, love, and family leads to a better life than focusing life around a company job, because while the former leads to spiritual, aesthetic, and emotional fulfillment, the latter leads to nothing but shallow relationships and financial insecurity. A romantic worldview provides deep connection to another, a sense of security because you trust those around you, and a feeling of purpose. Meanwhile, obsessing over money ultimately leaves disconnected from potential lovers, as well as financially insecure, because the desire for more money leads to the feeling that you never have enough (i.e. desiring more money leads to perpetual poverty).

Thus, rather than view the world in terms of the market economy, beautiful women should approach the world with deeper values like romance, love, and family. This isn't radical, it's common sense. After all, women derive most of their happiness from non-monetary sources. Women prefer the excitement of a romance to the tediousness of answering endless streams of pointless company emails. They prefer leisure. And in particular, women prefer giving. Women like taking care of others without being paid to do it. They like volunteering in their communities, again without payment.

(2) Even if you agree with Pro that beautiful women should maximize money (and you shouldn’t), Pro’s argument still fails. After all, seducing a rich man leads to more money much quicker (and with much less work, risk, or downside) than a boring company job. Examples abound of rich men giving beautiful women immense financial wealth, financial wealth that also comes with lots of free time to explore passions, to engage in community service, to make the world a better place, rather than wasting time working a boring job to make some company executive (probably a man) richer.

Because a woman’s beauty peaks in her early 20s, a young romantic can easily seduce a rich man while the career woman saddles herself with student loans to get a college degree so that she can start her career in an entry-level job making a tiny fraction of the money that her romantic counterpart already has. While the romantic woman easily gets rich in her 20s, the career woman doesn’t start getting rich until mid-life, when she’s no longer beautiful or attractive to most men. The career woman must accept the risk of student loans, the risk of competition for good jobs, promotions, and better pay, as well at the risk of limited time for dating, failed romance, delayed marriage, and ultimately lack of meaningful connection. And that’s to say nothing of the fact that high-paying jobs usually require upwards of 70 hours of work per week, leaving our career woman spiritually, aesthetically, and emotionally drained.

Puzzlingly, Pro argues that beauty somehow leads the romantic woman to enter shallow relationships & one night stands. If anything, this applies more to the career woman than the romantic. After all, the career woman has less time to find meaningful relationships because she’s too focused on her career, which inevitably leads to more one night stands. Meanwhile, the romantic has all the time in the world to explore deeper connections with men without the need to engage in pointless one night stands. And while the career woman is more likely to view relationships in market terms, the romantic is more likely to view relationships in romantic ones, thus leading to better relationships. 

Pro also says women don't need to pursue men because men already pursue women. But the issue isn’t whether women need to pursue men to get married, the issue is whether to prioritize career or romance, which in turn informs an entire worldview (i.e. whether to view the world in market terms or romantic terms?).

Choose romance because it leads to a better, more meaningful life.
Round 2
Con presumes that merely because I list money that it is the prime factor for career, but that is not the case. Women only have to achieve financial stability in order to satisfy living, and the rest is up to them. They may choose among countless jobs that fulfill what they love and give them the sense of freedom. Recall that I said previously, women in the work force are an inspiration to young girls to choose their own path.

As a blog notes, along with four reasons resonating with the need for financial base, one testimony said: “Being in love comes with expectations, commitment and demands that force you to give up a lot of your personal space. I am not willing to do that at any cost. My job lets me travel the world, explore different cultures and meet new people every single day. I love this freedom and have fallen in love with this life. My work is my passion and I am yet to find someone worthy enough to change my priorities.”

There is a Japanese concept of "Ikigai", the purpose of life, which may be achieved by career. The secret to making your life more fulfilling and happy. Pick a job that you love, contributes to society, pays you, and that you're good at. Our curiosity and sense of self drives everyone to a well-chosen career. But chasing after men can often be fruitless and unfortunate in comparison.

Indeed, Con only shows the best side of love, but has not considered the process. It takes 140+ days to say "I love you", from round 1. And even then, the relation is not guaranteed to last. There are even many reasons listed common to why breakups are incredibly common even after 1~2 years, according to experts. The marriage rate in US has dropped to a low 6.5 per 1,000 population, and divorce rate is 2.9 per 1,000 -- that's almost half as much! -- inferring that love is just not what it used to be. Heartbreak and tragic suffering with wasted time clearly results in an ending no one wants to achieve. 

Consider this situation where the woman was stuck at crossroads and had to choose. She loves a man and he loves her back. But she has her personal passion that she wants to pursue. Most would agree, that the man's show of true love would letting her have the freedom to choose her passion, have her independence. Because our personal autonomy is one thing we value just as much as love. For the man to ask her to choose him infers a selfish decision. Keep in mind, that if the woman chooses the man as her main goal, that means most her effort would be concentrated on him, rather than herself. Though the man can support her emotionally and financially, the woman might always be wondering, what if she just tried to seek out the activity she loved. Just like hobbies, jobs are an essential part of life. We can't give up those, just for the sake of another person. Let's seek for what WE personally value most consistently, rather than having trouble finding individuals who can be with you for your life.
Pro drops his argument about money. He also ignores my argument in favor of romantic values, and instead pivots to the values of “freedom” and “ikigai.”
First, Pro argues that the career woman has more freedom to “choose among countless jobs.” But a “career” usually means choosing one job for the rest of your life, whereas the romantic actually has the ability to shift paths whenever she wants (i.e. to “choose among countless jobs”). The romantic thus has more freedom to choose jobs, and because the romantic doesn’t have to work 70 hours per week in a career, she also has more “free time” to spend pursuing passions outside the market economy. In fact, the romantic doesn’t need to work at all, offering her another life path closed to the career woman.
As evidence, Pro refers to the testimonial of a single woman, arguing that romance “force[s] you to give up a lot of your personal space.” But this need not be so. Many men give women more freedom than they had before the relationship. And Pro ignores the behavioral changes that work forces upon women, as careers limit how you comport yourself, not just at work but also in your personal life. It’s one of the reasons that so many career women never get married or end up getting divorced. Careers take over your life, forcing to you maintain a professional exterior at all times, whatever the cost. Pro ignores the many ways that careers limit the freedom to pursue passions outside work, as well as the freedom to pursue romantic relationships to their fullest potential.
Ironically, Pro’s source supports my argument when she notes “I am yet to find someone worthy enough to change my priorities.” In other words, she’d prefer romance in the right circumstances, proving my point that even the most career-obsessed are still searching for deeper connections, and that they’re willing to make sacrifices for this sort of love. Her testimonial thus supports my argument in two ways: one, her testimonial suggests that focusing on career leads to sub-par romantic relationships; and two, her testimonial shows that at bottom women value romance more than career (for “someone worthy”). If this woman had been beautiful, and if she had been actively pursuing a man instead of her career, maybe she would have found “someone worthy” already?
Second, Pro argues that the career woman benefits from “ikigai,” or purpose. But Pro offers no evidence to think the romantic doesn’t benefit from “ikigai” either.  After all, the romantic usually has more free time, financial security (from rich lovers), and spiritual energy than the career woman to pursue passions and contribute to society. Moreover, Pro’s reference to Japan hurts his case, as “ikigai” has been a total failure, leading to Japan’s skyrocketing rates of career-related depression, lack of romantic relationships, suicide, and risk of population collapse. See

Third, Pro argues that love takes too long, specifically 140+ days. This criticism applies with far more force to careers. It takes much longer than 140 days to develop a career into something meaningful -- first there's college, then graduate school, then long hours working your way up at a company until you have any sort of meaningful responsibility -- and there’s never a guarantee the career will last. Careers require constant competition with others for promotions, and often result in termination. Pro also cites marriage statistics in the US, but these statistics don't help Pro. These statistics reflect the impact of career women in the US on marriage, family, and children. They show that less women get married when women pursue careers over men, and that more women get divorced. This ultimately results in huge harms to children, who are increasingly raised without the benefit of a mother and father. When you look at statistics from other countries where women pursue men over career, as a matter of comparison, the marriage rate is high and the divorce rate is low. See, for example, statistics from my home country of Ethiopia.
Finally, Pro offers a false hypothetical: a choice between romance and pursuing a personal passion. Why can’t she do both? And what's a personal passion have to do with a career? If anything, careers usually limit the ability to pursue personal passions. Pro says jobs are an essential part of life. But historically jobs haven't been "essential" to a beautiful woman's life. Rather, jobs have been viewed as something troubling, contrasted with leisure, passion, and romance. Simply, put, jobs don't fulfill our deepest human needs for connection and love. I agree with Pro that women should prioritize what they value most, and for the vast majority of us, that's deep connection with others, not working a company job.

Round 3
Money just happens to be a bonus on the way, and does not have to be the main greedy purpose that undermines my own case. Con has not negated the fact that if relationship fail for any of the 16 reasons, the heartbreak and the energy spent is not worth it. In contrast to relations' very low stability rate, 85% of people have reported that they are happy in their workplace, putting massive doubt in con's attempt to refute ikigai. On the other hand, only 64% of people are happy in their relations. The attachment to people can let it become a parasite and toxic in your life, especially if it is not going well, but you feel attached to the person. Jobs however, have countless companies in the same sector, and the deep emotional attachment is lesser.

Jobs still allow you to communicate with others, make friends, chase your passion. All three combined with saving money establish a good base, and the statistics already show that people like jobs more often than people like their partners. The problem with relation is that it takes a lot of energy and con's attempts to say that the woman can try to seduce someone rich, brings down his case, as this would similar to my round 1 of only looking at the financial matters. If the woman is able to establish her independence and her love for herself, then I believe, it sets up the relationship much better. There are just too many variables in relation, further assisting and echoing the above round: sex, money, communication, arguments... But in the workplace, just perform well, connect with coworkers, and you're good to go. The friendships are arguably just as important as the partnership, and the money along with love of job will allow my argument to boost the career ahead of the partner. Vote for pro.
There’s not much left to say. Pro’s argument has already crumbled, as he’s repeatedly dropped arguments throughout the debate. 
Pro refers to some surveys in the final round, but the surveys yet again help my case more than his. First, Pro says 85% of people are happy in their workplace, but hides the fact that the survey isn’t talking about life as a whole. There’s a difference. Pro's survey was measuring “how Americans feel about their jobs,” not how they feel about their life as a whole. It’s also a survey of a certain class of professionals, specifically people who have higher degrees of education working in elite jobs. Thus, if you find this survey relevant even though it’s not, apply all my arguments about the risks of student loan debt, fierce competition (not just with beautiful women but among all people), shallow relationships, delayed marriage, and ultimately divorce. 
Second, Pro cites a survey that says only 64% of people are happy in their relationships. But again, Pro hides the key finding from this survey: the factors that made people happy in their relationships, and the factors that made people unhappy in their relationships. According to Pro’s survey, respondents who were “perfectly happy” were those that prioritized romance and took “the time to get to know one another before taking the plunge into marriage,” whereas the unhappy couples were those that “prioritized companionship over love,” which is to say, the couples who didn't prioritize their relationship. It’s the people who prioritized career over romance who wanted a relationship for companionship, and Pro's survey tells us that these same people are the ones who end up in unhappy relationships. These findings aren’t surprising. 
Pro also says some stuff about the harms of “deep emotional attachment.” Again, Pro hasn’t contested my point that humans have a deep need for connection, nor has he contested my sources showing that people are happier when they choose to prioritize romantic values over market values. Pro’s own sources support my point. Having a deep connection with another person leads to a better life. Prioritizing love over career leads to a better life. All the evidence shows that. Pro’s anti-connection ethos is deeply nihilistic and defeatist. It also runs contrary to the Western canon of literature, poetry, and art, as well as every major Eastern text on these issues as well.  
Pro also suggests that careers take less effort. But again, that’s nihilistic and defeatist. After all, just because something is easier doesn’t mean it’s better or preferable. Becoming a burger flipper at McDonalds is easier than becoming a world-class surgeon, but most people would say becoming a surgeon is preferable. Again, this is common sense. Some things are worth fighting for because they make life better. Romance, love, and family are some of those things. They might take more energy than a simple career like burger flipper, but they also provide far more aesthetic, emotional, and spiritual nourishment, while also improving society in immeasurable ways.
Finally, Pro says that jobs “still allow you to communicate with others.” So too romance also allows you to have a career. The issue is whether to prioritize one over the other. Pro’s sources show that people who prioritize love have happy relationships, whereas those that prioritize careers have unhappy relationships. Pro hasn’t provided any evidence that people who prioritize careers have better lives. To the contrary, the evidence shows the opposite. 
For all the reasons presented in this debate, a beautiful woman should actively pursue a man over a career.