Instigator / Pro
3
1473
rating
4
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#3295
The Black Pill Is True
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Benjamin
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 8,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1760
rating
89
debates
76.4%
won
Description
black pill: The "black pill" generally refers to a set of commonly held beliefs in incel communities, which include biological determinism, fatalism, and defeatism for unattractive people. Believers are referred to as being "blackpilled". Those who believe the blackpill believe sexual and romantic attraction is almost purely decided by ones looks and genetic features, they also believe ones looks are extremely important in terms of career and how people treat you. I will be defending this ideology.
Rules: none, just be open to learning on both sides.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you for accepting this debate, Mr Benjamin. All references will be in the comment section, as i do not want to destroy my character limit.
Contention I: Ugly people are more likely to become criminals
Mocan and Tekin (2006) performed an analysis of outcomes from the Add Health (National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health), a longitudinal study of US adolescents for the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), an American nonprofit research organization committed to unbiased economic research.
They found that there was a weak though significant connection between being physically unattractive and being drawn to a life of crime. This connection was not due to differences in socio-economic birth status between the unattractive and attractive adolescents. Their findings supported two possible explanations: first, that being unattractive reduces opportunities in the labor market, thus pushing ugly individuals to find other livelihoods, and second, that attractive people receive more positive reinforcement in the education system (such as greater sports and club participation and more positive peer and teacher interactions) which leads to them better learning the skills required to succeed later on.
They found that there was a weak though significant connection between being physically unattractive and being drawn to a life of crime. This connection was not due to differences in socio-economic birth status between the unattractive and attractive adolescents. Their findings supported two possible explanations: first, that being unattractive reduces opportunities in the labor market, thus pushing ugly individuals to find other livelihoods, and second, that attractive people receive more positive reinforcement in the education system (such as greater sports and club participation and more positive peer and teacher interactions) which leads to them better learning the skills required to succeed later on.
Contention II: Race pill
this is another brutal pill to swallow, But studies and data show that women of all races have an overwhelming preference for white men, Yes you heard that right, Women of all races except black women has a huge preference for white men, I will be linking sources in the comment section for every single one of the claims I make, Women are far more racially biased when it comes to dating then what men are. To assess racial preferences in Europe, researches analyzed anonymized profile and preference information of users registered at the eDarling online dating site. In an agreement with the company, data was accessed for all users in September 2011. Researchers performed their analyses on a total pooled sample of 58,880 heterosexual members drawn from an original sample of 876,658 heterosexual site users.
When filling in their dating profiles, users were offered the same list of racial choices in all nine countries studied, both in terms of own racial background and preferred race for partner. The question regarding partner’s race asked, "Of which ethnicity (or origin) do you want the person you are searching for to be?"
The seven categories offered were: European, African, Asian, Arabic, Indian, Hispanic (Latin American), or other. The Indian and Asian categories were combined into a broader Asian category and the other category was excluded as it could not be clear what it represented.
Based on a multivariate logistic regression model, controlling for education, gender, age, religion, marital history, importance of partner’s race, long-term dating intentions, type of membership, and country, a clear racial hierarchy emerged similar to the American data from the Yahoo Personals study above, with only a different rank position for blacks.
The racial hierarchy of desirability in this study across Europe for both genders combined was established as:
- White > Hispanic > Asian > Black > Middle Eastern
- It should be noted that researchers did not provide a gendered breakdown of preferences. Asian women are consistently more desirable than Asian men and black men more than black women in other studies, for example, and thus the precise hierarchy of non-whites might be expected to change with gendered data. Okcupid also has similar results, of women of all races, (except black) preferring white men.
contention III: Good looking people are perceived to have better personalities
Meta-analysis was used to examine findings in 2 related areas: experimental research on the physical attractiveness stereotype and correlational studies of characteristics associated with physical attractiveness. The experimental literature found that physically attractive people were perceived as more sociable, dominant, sexually warm, mentally healthy, intelligent, and socially skilled than physically unattractive people. Yet, the correlational literature indicated generally trivial relationships between physical attractiveness and measures of personality and mental ability, although good-looking people were less lonely, less socially anxious, more popular, more socially skilled, and more sexually experienced than unattractive people.
Contention III: height pill
Height discrimination is as real and more prevalent than what racism is in the modern day, this is statistically provable and verifiable. This is true both in the workplace and true in the dating market. Stating your height in an online dating profile could fuck you over badly if you’re a manlet. According to a particular dating app, firstmet, the ideal height related to most matches in males was 6’2” (188 cm). A man who is 6 foot plus is 17% more likely to get a match back than a shorter counterpart. In a study on humans published in Animal Studies, it was shown that men who are between 5'3" (160 cm) and 5'6" (168 cm) are anywhere from 3–10 times less attractive than average height men, solely because of their height. 95% of women will statistically flat-out reject a man below 5'6 regardless of any other qualities he may have. Sperm banks require men be at least 5'8. Almost no president in Americas history has been below 6 feet tall, bar around 5. Short men are more likely to neck rope.
Contention IV: Online dating hypergamy
in the year 1989 male virginity of those under the age of 30 was placed at 7% then in 2008 this statistic slightly progressed from 7% to 8% but in the following years, Since 2008 male virginity has skyrocketed to 27%. You may ask why this is? The most likely cause for this sudden and drastic rise is generally pinned down to the advent of social media and dating websites. As more and more relationships are formed online, Which in 2018 I believe was 50%, I can imagine since COVID-19 this statistic has probably drastically risen since the beginning of that too, As things have become more online women in terms of dating have become more and more picky, Tinder statistics show that women only swipe right 4. 1% of the time on tinder. This is nowhere near the case for men where the right swipe stat is well over 50% showing that women are 10x's more picky when it comes to online dating. I'm sure you can see the problem here, As things have become more online orientated More and more men are becoming left out while the women are flooded with options and all the women all choose the same 20% of men and these 20% of men is being judged purely on ones looks, Showing in the modern day all that is needed is good looks. You simply cannot escape online dating standards in the modern day. The average woman rates the average man a 4 whilst the average man rates the average a 7. Contrary to popular belief, most women do care about looks and will not date a guy they find unappealing, just like men wont a woman they don't find appealing. Women just have higher standards in these regards. Yet they also will not date down financially hardly as much. STD rates have risen in western nations in recent times despite men getting less and less sex? i wonder how that could be.
Contention V: Ugly people are viewed as less funny
Cowan & Little (2012) conducted a study to assess the degree to which humor influenced sexual selection (particularly in men) as powerfully as it is often touted to in the mainstream discourse surrounding relationships. Although unattractive participants scored slightly higher in funniness in the audio only condition, they were viewed as less funny in the video and photograph conditions, with this effect being especially apparent in the photograph condition as compared to the audio only condition. The opposite was true for attractive men—thus demonstrating perceptions of humor are significantly influenced by attractiveness.
Con
#2
black pill: The "black pill" generally refers to a set of commonly held beliefs in incel communities, which include biological determinism, fatalism, and defeatism for unattractive people. Believers are referred to as being "blackpilled". Those who believe the blackpill believe sexual and romantic attraction is almost purely decided by ones looks and genetic features, they also believe ones looks are extremely important in terms of career and how people treat you. I will be defending this ideology.
This is the black pill PRO presents. The evidence he provides only supports the basis for the black pill, not the attitude and philosophy it represents. His BoP requires that he prove determinism, fatalism and defeatism.
Determinism: determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot act otherwise than they do. [britannica]
Fatalism: the attitude of mind which accepts whatever happens as having been bound or decreed to happen. Such acceptance may be taken to imply belief in a binding or decreeing agent. [britannica]
Defeatism: an attitude of accepting, expecting, or being resigned to defeat. [merriam-webster]
As you can clearly see, the black pill is more philosophical than scientific. The truth of PRO's statistics do in no way validate the philosophy of incel communities.
STATING MY CASE
Thank you, PRO, for providing us with interesting information. I am sure everyone is really surprised about these facts. Except, this is common knowledge. Nobody disagrees with the indisputable problem of unequal starting points. From the beginning of time it has been known that people may be born rich or poor, ugly or pretty, and that these conditions greatly affect ones life and opportunitites. So what's so special about "the black pill"? Nothing really. The ideology is nothing more novel than the fatalism and defeatism it encompasses. For this reason, regarding the entire pill as true based solely on the truth of conventional wisdom in it makes no sense. No ideology can be objectively true as they by definition are social constructs.
Moreover, the black pill is inconsequential because its premise undermines far more than it admits. The underlying idea of the black pill is determinism; as no other premise could support its conclusion that trying to change things is futile. The fundamental fact regarding determinism is that it is incompatiple with free will; thus defeating every freedom humans suposedly enjoy. The black pill can only be considered "true" insofar as determinism is proven objectively true and fatalism is proven the only valid conclusion from said fact. But determinism is near-impossible to reconsile with unlimited complexity and quantum mechanics [1] [2] [3]. The fatalistic part of the black pill is reliant upon this notion of a future carved out in rock, but also is a subjective take on the implications thereof. I would ask PRO to provide clear evidence proving that the philosophy of the black pill is objectively true, as that is the burden of proof he unfortunately took on himself.
In short, the black pill isn't true just because science supports common sense regarding privileges. The black pill is only true if the conclusions it arrives at are more than subjective philosofical responses to a still unproven determinism. Fatalism is also neither sound nor healthy at solving real problems. The black pill is harmfull and unnecesary, not to mention unfalsifiable per se, due to attitude-philosophy not being falsifiable. For this reason, I reject the black pill even though I accept all of PRO's sources and statistics. PRO must provide evidence that fatalism, determinism and defeatism are all objectively true, which he has not done.
Good luck, PRO.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thank you for accepting this debate, Mr. Benjamin. I wish you luck, you will need it.
Contention I: meaning of the blackpill
The purpose of the blackpill to incels is more so the idea that one's looks are the most important factor when it comes to love and getting into a relationship. Contrary to what you said, this is not common sense. Most men are "blue-pilled" because they believe personality is the most important thing when it comes to dating. The Blackpill talks about how looks are the most important thing. This is the main contention I wanted to get across. However, I will argue that yes, ugly people are on average going to be predisposed to a worse life than attractive people, therefore showing the blackpill to be true. Both in fatalism and determinism.
Rebuttal II: The aeroplane analogy
The statistics show that, on average, short, ugly, balding men are going to have harder lives than people who do not have these traits on average. The data I provided in the previous round is a testament to this fact. Therefore, in large sample sizes, you will see big differences in the level of livelihood of people who have these traits and those who do not. I can't say you're destined to be this or that just because you're ugly, but I can say "20% of you are destined to be this."As a result, fatalism and determinism remain true on average. To deny this as not being fatalism or apart from determinism would be a mistake on your part. Just because a black female Muslim can become President of the United States does not mean that racism does not exist in the United States, oppressing the average black Muslim and lowering their chances of success. This would be a part of determinism, as again, on average, this group of people is predetermined to do worse. The same applies to ugly people. Just because you've seen a 5'4 balding Indian janitor with a harem doesn't mean all men with these traits can have one. He's an exception, not the rule. Just because one man survived a jump from a 12-storey building does not mean someone else will. This proves that, on average, ugly people are predestined to not do as well as better-looking people. This is deterministically and statistically true.
Con
#4
Thank you, PRO. This time I have adequate time and will present a solid rebuttal to your case.
RECALL: The resolution asserts more than a few genetic privileges -- it does those attitudes and philosophies of incel people, including determinism, defeatism and fatalism.
Rebuttal I: mistake in terms - the real meaning of the blackpill
PRO reasserts the blackpill by saying "ugly people are on average predisposed to a worse life than attractive people". The crucial mistake here lies in confusing the philosophy with the emperical evidence. There is no logical basis for going from "x is often true" to "we should accept and expect x without hesitation or resistance". PRO's argument is a non-sequitor. Genetically privileged people have an easier time than those who are less fortunate, but the philosophies determinism, defeatism and fatalism remain unsupported. The meaning of the black pill is not merely the specifics of attractiveness, whether its inside or outside, but the capitulation to a pre-determined life of failure and misery. These views are highly objectionable and we should be skeptical of any attempt at equating scientific research with philosophy. Merely because scientific studies confirm a few views held by incels don't mean that incel attitudes and worldview are correct and true.
Rebuttal II: PRO's argument is self-defeating
Being ugly is not only a matter of genes or emperical outlook but also of taste and variation. Different people have different standards of beaty and attractiveness, as well as different aspects of a person they value. To showcase my point here is a compilation of uggly people who married supermodels [2]. Whether or another person will want to make out with you is dependent on a load of factors including the frequency of interaction. Extremely unfortunate people may feel that their cards are unplayable, when in fact there are always people out there in the same condition. If two uggly people meet and marry each then PRO's statistical analysis collapses and the odds are overcome. If uggly people CAN marry supermodels and uggly people CAN marry other uggly people with the right circumstances; then the philosophy of the blackpill is invalidated. Looks are not everything.
Counterpoint I: benefits of being uggly
The data shows that when you take into account all factors and focus on high-prestige careers like finance and science you find that uggly people are more successfull [3]. In fact, the ugglies 3% of people out-earn half of the general population. Being successfull despite problematic condition is very much possible and overcoming said obstacles yields far more prestige and benefits than would their abscence. Furthermore, many relationships between men and women are between people of different levels of attractiveness for the sole reason that the pressure of having to measure up to the partner is unpleasant [5] [6]. The detrimental effects of "uggliness" are only situational. The takeaway is that reality is far more nuanced than the blackpill. The pill is in fact quite inaccurate.
Counterpoint II: potential for improvement
Despite what PRO would have us believe attractiveness is not static, but dynamic. Nature and nurture both play a role, and nurture is the more powerfull variable. Beautifull people spend time styling their hair, cutting their nails, smoothing their skin, or even use surgery to elevate their bodily attractiveness. Doing so they are able to become supermodels and far superceed their base biology. Uggly people can do so as well. There are a plenty of scientifically proven methods to become more attractive and overcome intrinsic uggliness. These methods involve nothing more than changing one's habbits in a certain way, and are only a few among enourmous lists of ways to positively affect your attractiveness and likeableness. It is possible to fix bodily "errors" as well, by utilizing effective strategies for changing your own body [4]. Even if I grant that lookism is correct, and that uggly people are doomed to be lonely, there is nothing to prevent people from escaping uggliness. Genetics be damned, anyone can become pretty.
Kritik I: the blackpill is harmfull and deceptive
The incell community is obviously not acting in accordance with scientific knowledge. Had they done so they would not be so pessimistic and misoginistic. "The Blackpill is a fatalist view that one’s success with the opposite sex is determined at birth — your physical attractiveness trumps all else, and if you fall underneath a certain point, well…its over. Your genetics have determined that you will be forever alone, deprived of sexual intimacy and love."[1]. This pill is deceptive and dishonest. Science shows a clear correlation between specific actions taken to improve your chances and real success. The blackpill denies this fact
Misogynist incels attempt to prove the truth of the Black Pill through misreadings of scientific studies, online dating datasets, and their own “experiments” to prove that women only care about a man’s physical looks. Although some incels still seek out plastic surgery, work out (“gym maxxing”), or try to otherwise improve their physical features, many believe such strategies are pointless as inceldom is a problem with society, not the individual. Blackpilled incels are aware of appearance and sociability/game strategies and reject them as solutions.
The blackpill asserts that inceldom is a problem with society and that improving your position is not worthwhile. I demand evidence that this is the case.
The Black Pill philosophy typically offers only two options for what to do with their new accepted reality: accept their fate as an incel or try to change society to their benefit—usually advocated as potentially achievable by means of mass violence and terror, not politics or other methods of change. “Copes” are looked down on as methods of coping with without changing the unjust system, including denying the reality of the Black Pill. For those who choose to accept their blackpilled fate, suicide is often presented as the most inevitable solution; it is also encouraged in misogynist incel communities, as a form of sacrificial violence and/or martyrdom. [7]
When uggly people can marry supermodels, excell in science and business, and otherwise shape their bodies to their own desires for beauty, it hardly seems reasonable to swallow the blackpill. The blackpill says you should give up chasing your goals and is thus a self-fullfilling prophecy. Incels that swallow the blackpill don't succeed in life precisely because the pill consists of nonsensical defeatism and fatalism. A justification for misoginy, suicide and terrorism cannot be considered true or valid in any way shape or form.
Kritik II: undermining free will
The black pill is incompatiple with free will because it indulges in determinism. Free will being true would dismantle the pill by simple virtue of making choice and personality non-determined. If you can freely chose to marry an uggly person then the blackpill loses its foundation that is biological determinism. The data PRO cites cannot be used to deny free will, because his statistics only describe human choices, they don't dictate them. PRO needs to deny free will in order to even have a chance at asserting the blackpill.
Kritik III: how the blackpill overlooks essential facts
Despite what PRO would have you believe, personality traits and behaviours are essential when it comes to attraction, and studies confirm this. "Individuals -- both men and women -- who exhibit positive traits, such as honesty and helpfulness, are perceived as better looking. Those who exhibit negative traits, such as unfairness and rudeness, appear to be less physically attractive to observers." [8]. This effect is universal and applies to every person regardless of their looks or initial impression. Importantly, personality traits and general behaviour is the primary faktor in forming close friendships; because looks are only a first impression, whilst the impression from personality compounds over time. The study confirms that people can change their minds about a person merely by that person's traits and qualities. In other words, uggly people can still be viewed as attractive, and beatifull people can still be viewed as repelling; lookism is thouroughly debunked.
SUMMARY:
For the black pill to be considered true, free will has to be eliminated; fatalism and defeatism has to be proven the only valid attitudes for incels to hold; all posibilities for consciously overcomming genetic barriers must be ruled out; and finaly, science regarding the crucial role of personality traits and good habits has to be discredited --- PRO has acomplished none of this. PRO has done nothing more than confirm conventional wisdom that being born uggly puts you on the back foot; which is only a fraction of what the black pill stands for. Misoginy and suicidal ideas plague incel communities all the while science disproves their belief in hopelessness. Uggly people can succeed, they can be perceived as attractive, they can even stop being uggly if they so wish --- the blackpill only deceives them into unjustifiable despair.
CONCLUSION:
The blackpill is not true. It is nothing but a harmfull misconception.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Rebuttal: non-sequitur
My argument is not a non-sequitur, no. Statistically speaking ugly people are on average pre-determined to have worse lives. This will never change, therefore it is deterministic, it wont change. The philosophy is backed by the science. You should expect more ugly people to fail than succeed in comparison to those that are attractive, in fact, i know so. I don't need faith. It may not be deterministically true for individuals, yet it is for groups. "These views are highly objectionable and we should be sceptical of any attempt at equating scientific research with philosophy." everything to do with science begins as philosophy.... "Merely because scientific studies confirm a few views held by incels don't mean that incel attitudes and worldview are correct and true." yes it does, if its what their entire philosophy is built upon. Their defeatist attitude as an individual may not be correct, yet the philosophy that looks matter more than personality in large sample sizes remains true. All the guys you linked who married supermodel women, were rich men. The blackpill literally confirms that the only time you overcome looks is if you're rich, i put it in one of my links but a 5'3 male would have to earn 200,000 dollars more than a 5'11 man to be considered equally desirable. It doesn't matter if the data dictates human choices, it simply works as an observation of them and a study of why we make the choices we do. The blackpill is simply that looks matter the most.
Rebuttal: personality
Yes, personality matters a lot. Especially for a long term relationship, the thing is you must first pass the looks exam before she will consider you long term, if you're 5'4 that's just not going to happen 80% of the time, statistically. Unless you're rich. If looks didn't matter, everyone would be bisexual, yet we're not. Your looks can somewhat be controlled by your personality, i talked about this with lemming in the comments, in fact. You can appear more attractive through a good personality, yet at the same time being naturally attractive also leads you to get away with having a bad personality and these qualities be viewed as good. If an ugly quy is quiet, he's weird. If its a hot guy, he's adorable. When an ugly woman smokes cigs its trashy, when its a hot woman, its exotic. So yes, you can through your personality improve someone's perception of your looks, the same also happens if you're attractive too, not only do you have a natural halo effect yet you now also get away with shitty behaviour you never would of if you were ugly. This allows it so a good looking guy will always be more desirable than a ugly guy as long as he's not a dick. Many women will rather date a very handsome drug dealer/gas station employee than a balding doctor. This is just reality. Looks come before personality, then personality after looks. Looks get you through the front door after all. The truth is, ones looks are their personality to a degree too much for comfort for most people.
Rebuttal : Objectivity of looks
One can distinguish objective and subjective preferences for body shapes. Objective preferences are genetically inherited, so everyone mostly agrees on them, whereas subjective preferences are acquired through emotional experience.
Objective beauty is mostly about mathematical/geometric simplicity, which includes symmetry, smoothness, averageness, repetitions and elegance. It has been proposed many animal brains have a natural preference for this because simplicity is easy to process, which is called the processing fluency theory of aesthetic pleasure, which is thought to be a mere side-effect or spandrel of an actually useful preference for order and predictability.
An example of objective beauty may be that even blind men prefer women's elegant hourglass-shaped body, suggesting men are born with this aesthetic preference. Things such as clear skin, symmetry are objectively beautiful in all cultures and people. Certain face shapes, such as almond, positive canthal tilted eyes are also universally attractive in men. More defined jaw lines with little subdural fat are also universally attractive. Looks only become subjective on things not to do with health and reproductive fitness, such as eye colour.
Con
#6
Thank you, Exanimaa.
This round is the only one I have to rebutt PRO's objections to my arguments. For this reason, this is a long rebuttal. I will target PRO's specific claims for relevant scrutiny. I hope to demonstrate his failure to defend against my objections and arguments.
The blackpill is simply that looks matter the most.
Perhaps PRO would have won a debate about which individual factor is most significant to desireability, but this is about the blackpill as a whole. The fact of the matter is that his view of the blackpill is reductionistic and plain wrong. The pill is not merely the science PRO presented; the blackpill is not a scientific theory, and it is not mentioned in scientific articles or studies. PRO's own definitions reveal three non-scientific views included in the blackpill: determinism, fatalism and defeatism. None of these are supported by PRO in any way, as he pretends the blackpill isn't a philosophy but rather a fact. This way he fails to fullfill his BoP.
The thing is you must first pass the looks exam before she will consider you long term
PRO is gasping for straws here. Love at first sight is the only possible scenario in which personality doesn't matter. Any other relationship with any person is influenced immensely by how you act and behave. Playing your cards right, being at the right places, knowing what to do --- is far more important than looks. I remember presenting specific evidence as to why personality and character traits have instant effects on other people's perception of your. Studies show that good character traits make people view you as more physically attractive. That is to say, personality and body are tightly intertwined in how we analyse others. PRO is horrendously mistaken in claiming that being uggly bars you from entering the game --- you most certainly are already in the social sphere and can play your cards right to achieve success. Looks certainly help, both in first and later impressions. I stress that, again, PRO is treating common sense as groundbreaking science.
Objectivity of looks
I am willing to grant this point. Even still, there are multiple ways to change your bodily appearence towards objective attractiveness. Furthermore, personality influences your physical impression, and science confirms certain habits, programs and lifestyle choices objectively improve your likeableness and attractiveness. Todays supermodels enhance their natural beaty in this manner. They spend a lot of time cultivating their personal beaty --- and anyone can do so as well.
All the guys you linked who married supermodel women, were rich men.
Excactly. Those who are uggly and enjoy great success in science and business are smart hard working people. PRO is misusing statistics about undesireable traits to support his argument. In reality, being uggly is but one of a buttload of factors contributing to people's success in different aspects of their lives. Looks are part of an equation in which personality, money, status, intelligence and other individual traits each matter a lot. To say that your success is determined at birth because height and skin color is genetic is a fallacy of composition. Just because some aspect of your potential is outside of your controll doesn't mean your success is determined. Biological determinism is unsupported by PRO-
Statistically speaking ugly people are on average pre-determined to have worse lives. This will never change, therefore it is deterministic.
This is a fallacy. Quantum mechanics predicts the trajectory of particles in terms of waves of probability values, and experimentation consistently confirms the predictions made by doing the math. Quantum laws are thus probabalistic and unchanging --- does that mean it is deterministic? Of course not. Proof of determinism requires specific predictions for the trajectory of individuals. PRO is also wrong about the statistical effects of uggliness never changing. In societies were it is common with arranged marriage as strategic alliances between families, social mobility is essentially abscent and class is inherited; the importance of looks diminishes and other factors grow in signifiance. What predicts success is constantly changing along with society. To assert that mere statistics prove determinism is laughable. Uggly people who fail misereably because they had nothing to offer society or potential partners cannot simply blame their uggliness alone. A beautiful person with the same lack of value to offer would not fare noteworthy better in life. Beauty is an advantage, not a requirement, for success.
Looks come before personality, then personality after looks.
Only chronologically. Marriages break apart because of personality, not looks. Personality defines your entire life, looks affect the amount of effort you need to find a partner.
SUMMARY
I have thoroughly debunked PRO's case. Through relevant comparison to cases in the real world I showed that looks do not determine success. My objections to PRO is that his statistics are not valid evidence for the philosophy of the blackpill, far from it. The data clearly shows a clear correlation between how we live and how successfull we are. Nowhere is the fatalistic view that success is determined at birth supported by PRO's argument or mentioned in scientific articles. PRO is not supporting the real blackpill, only a reductionistic non-relevant version of it. No sane human would deny that looks matter a lot, but that doesn't make everyone blackpilled. The name says it all, and so does the definition PRO provided in the description: the blackpill is a philosophy of determinism, fatalism and defeatism circulating around in incel communities. These views are incompatible with free will and quantum mechanics and they lead to misoginy, suicide and violence. Additionally, the blackpill contradicts scientific evidence by asserting that success in life is determined at birth. Despite the best efforts of its intelectual proponents to hide this fact, the pill is debunked by our everyday experiences and scientific inquiry testifying that our choices and behavior have a far greater impact on our lives than does our appearance. Uggly people do achieve success in the real world because of their great minds, careers, social skills and efforts to improve themselves. For this reason, it is objectively wrong to believe that you are destined to fail because of your bodily imperfections.
I rest my case.
CONCLUSION: The blackpill as a whole is false. Only a few smal fractions of it contain glimses of truth.
Dropped argument from last round:
- An overwhelming potential for improvement defeats defeatism and fatalism.
- Benefits of being uggly do exist.
- The success of uggly people proves the blackpill wrong - uggly people are not determined to fail.
- Statistical patterns does not imply determinism, only causation.
- The blackpill is harmfull and deceptive because it inspires violence, suicide and misoginy and tells people to give up without justifying its fatalism.
- Free will is incompatible with the blackpill becuase the blackpill requires determinism.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro's R1 seems to be just plagiarism.
Con could have done better with examples, instead of trying to cite quantum mechanics. He did better later, wish such moments as "Free will being true would dismantle the pill by simple virtue of making choice and personality non-determined. If you can freely chose to marry an uggly person then the blackpill loses its foundation that is biological determinism."
The resolution calls for pro to show "sexual and romantic attraction is almost purely decided by ones looks and genetic features, they also believe ones looks are extremely important in terms of career and how people treat you." To which "20% of men is being judged purely on ones looks" does not meet minimal BoP to be taken seriously.
"Well, I think then, the black pill should be determinism, but not defeatism. According to what I think of your definition, "Ugly people do have it harder than handsome people" is black-pill."
Not really. The emphasis you are hearing might not quite be what I am trying to put out there it's not just moderately harder. Go Google the elephant man.
Seriously look at an image of him. Is that somebody who should be wasting his short life trying to find love or get pussy? Or would he be better off acknowledging that women are human and care about looks, and acknowledging he will always be ugly and instead living his life to the fullest.
You can say things like defeatist or determinism, but I'm going to tell you defeatist and determinism is the same thing. They both mean you become resigned to your fate.
"making peace with oneself instead of striving hard for unrealistic goals. Is that perhaps really the black pill is? If so, did a perfectly good idea get twisted by incels?"
It hasn't been twisted by incels. This is what they believe. Your ideal of incel has probably come from watching videos about then or reading commentary on them. Maybe you think that since elliot rodger was inspired by their ideology that he was incel. However, why Don't you actually talk to an incel. Maybe hear straight from the horses mouth what they believe?
I know it's easy to shit on incels. The media shits on them, people not studying their ideology but explaining it to others shits on them, hell even life shits on incels. They aren't this caricature created by the media though. I can probably get you contact details for some, but people are literally hating on these guys, for claiming that they are ugly and unfuckable.
"Then, is "I am a failure at life because I am ugly and it will not get better" a black-pill statement or am I wrong about it all along?"
Perhaps that is a blackpill statement. I think you miss the point a bit. I'll explain the terminology a but better, because black pill stands in contrast to the other ideologies of the manosphere. These are ideogies specific to the sexual market place it should be noted.
Blue pill = just be yourself and you'll find the right girl eventually.
Redpill= lift, make money and show confidence to get women.
Purple pill= the redpill is true but threatens western values, and institutions of monogamy.
Black pill= women care about looks more than what society thinks, and being ugly, short or just awkward means that you won't likely find somebody to love you. They differ from the typical redpill thinker, by not believing that money, Confidence or game will be enough to overcome their ugliness.
I think you have a hidden premise here, you are failing to acknowledge. You think it would somehow make somebody some sort of loser to think it's not worth the effort to pursue relationships, because they are ugly and their options are very limited. I hazard to guess, you probably think this because a part of you puts the pussy on a pedestal.
It's okay to be single or ugly and you can live a very fruitful life as an ugly person and die happy.
This notion that you have to think of yourself as good looking or having a winning personality, to feel good about yourself is wrong.
I don't know why society is painting incels as hating women. They are literally just stating that women care about looks and prioritize it more than society would have you believe.
I can acknowledge a lot of truth in that statement. I have had it easy with women, because of my looks. People want to say incels are incelibate merely because of shyness or not trying, but I am literally a person who has never had to pursue sex with women and slept with a lot of the. I am very very reserved and yet women approach me.
For good looking guys, we don't have to actually try at all. There are average looking guys that probably need a moderate amount of effort to sleep with women. Incels on the other hand, are so ugly they might have to dedicate their lives to it, and even when they manage to get one, they'll likely be a terrible partner, as even ugly women have no problem getting into relationships with average looking guys. So an ugly one available to incels will probably also be some sort of crazy and that is after the incel has been rejected by 1000 ugly women, in their pursuit of love.
This doesn't make women bad. It doesn't mean incels hate them. It just means that the one in a million chance they find love is probably wasted effort when they can be doing productive things with their time like learning a new language, or skill. Going to school for medicine etc. This is a similar thing to MGTOWs who just want to stay single, but with frequent sex.
Well, I think then, the black pill should be determinism, but not defeatism. According to what I think of your definition, "Ugly people do have it harder than handsome people" is black-pill.
Then, is "I am a failure at life because I am ugly and it will not get better" a black-pill statement or am I wrong about it all along?
Well, from #64, even Newton is a "celibate". However, well, incels would not be such rational behavior of even being an ordinary enjoyable person, and if so, the black pill should change definitions, for example, making peace with oneself instead of striving hard for unrealistic goals. Is that perhaps really the black pill is? If so, did a perfectly good idea get twisted by incels?
"Even people without arms can still run and swim and play the drums. Why is it good that people just not try when they clearly can?"
Probably because the reward is not worth the effort. If said unarmed person thinks the effort is worth the reward, than fine they should pursue that. However they should probably take the black pill and realize, they'll have a harder time than others
"As a student I will no longer study since I think calculus and microeconomics are way too hard and I will make peace with my grade anyways."
I think it's more relevant to say something like.
"Math is harder for me than the average person, and I will take the black pill to accept that. I will study harder with this realization and find creative ways to learn that my more talented class mates wouldn't need to do"
In black pill terminology it might be a thought such as
"I acknowledge that I look like the elephant man and can not very easily get pussy. Actually it will take considerable work to find a pussy to put my dick in"
Once the realization is made, then it is up to the incel to decide whether gaining gaining LTR with a woman they are attracted to is worth all the effort or not. If it is worth the effort than than the incel will do what's called "looks maxing ". It can involve dressing well, wearing lift shoes, mewing and getting their teeth fixed.
If they decide it isn't worth the effort than the result is likely to lead to them, realizing they are enough and living their best life as a celibate single person.
Even people without arms can still run and swim and play the drums. Why is it good that people just not try when they clearly can?
As a student I will no longer study since I think calculus and microeconomics are way too hard and I will make peace with my grade anyways.
Unless the descriptions are misleading, this is the equivalence to the black pill.
"Well, incels could work towards transforming themselves, working out or hustling or being a good guy in general. They would be much better than those who lock themselves in grievance caused by the "black pill"."
Why do you think the black pill means grievance or batching or moaning? It just means resigning yourself to your fate, which can be a positive thing that helps you focus on what you can control.
"you are someone who used a flat earth conspiracy site in a debate, which is in no way credible, so how are we gonna trust you?"
I really wish they had an IQ test for this site. What thing did I say, that requires trust?
To be fair, acknowledging that black people are currently being treated worse than white people generally in the US is rational. Stating, as a black man, that black people are bound to be have it worse than white people in forever long time, that is just unhealthy. These people will be frowned upon while civil right activists aiming to change the face of black people in the society are seen as heroes.
Well, incels could work towards transforming themselves, working out or hustling or being a good guy in general. They would be much better than those who lock themselves in grievance caused by the "black pill".
Using the N word to anyone is either rude or plain wrong. Plus, you are someone who used a flat earth conspiracy site in a debate, which is in no way credible, so how are we gonna trust you?
Bro, use citations. You brought up a lot of facts, cite them nigga.
Dude, why did you take that stupid tactic with this debate. The alternative theory to the black pill is that ugly dudes can find love, if they put in work to look their best, become successful and respect themselves. Your response was some stupid shit like
"Well some ugly people get lucky, so I guess it's untrue" also your first paragraph in round one is basically big fuck you to pro, because you try to take the topic off course
yeah, they have high suicide rates. That's not wholly because of the blackpill though, i imagine it plays into it however.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/05/south-korea-suicide-rates-mental-illness-squid-game/
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2021/07/119_312404.html
Just look at south korean men, they're all very blackpilled. They realise how much their looks matter, in korea you even have to put a picture of your face on your job applications, at least you used too.
Your concerns are correct, it is a dangerous ideology. Its very nihilistic, it is however, true. Women recognise this truth and they take it in their stride, i think pretending your looks dont matter if your a man is the cause of all this destruction, yet if people were honest, that they do matter then we would know what to expect and be able to adjust to it, just as women do.
You should be upset about any unfairness in life, actually. We don't like unequal pay. That's not to say we should be enraged by it. I see nothing wrong with recognising the blackpill as true, if you are a very mentally and emotionally developed person. Almost all women are blackpilled for instance, they recognise their looks are vital. We dont see them shooting up schools, a big part of this is because men are told our looks dont matter.
There is a difference between:
Life is 100% unfair and all those fucked over by it should feel rage and bitter resentment
and
Life is let's say 65% unfair even, within the 35% is still stuff you can't really help as you're only human and have limitations with how much of a situation you knew you could take advantage of vs what you did and how strategic and tactical you are.
The former mentality is black pill and incel mentality and leads to very bad mindsets in life that are either suicidal, homicidal or at the very least abusive. All such people need therapy or at least need to realise they are somehow wrong.
The latter mentality, which I'd say I have, is much more 'fuck it, let's use that 35% as best as we can and just roll with it'.
Ok, well there we go. You said the blackpill wasn't true, we now agree it is. When i opened the debate my main intent for the debate was to argue looks are more important than personality when it comes to dating, although i probably assumed too much knowledge. so it took a different turn than i was expecting.
To rationalise that these men who go on these killings sprees are just lunatics, is a negation of their environment, it doesnt solve the problem of how to stop this. Being willfully ignorant about it isnt going to make it go away. I agree they're full of hatred, they're sexists. This is not good, yet we must look at the things which make them this way objectively.
Some people are born with more advantages than others, life isn't fair, am I supposed to disagree with that? You seem to be strawmanning the Con side of this debate if you think that it is completely denying that life is unfair.
Genes are part of why it's unfair, you're not wrong. We are not all clones and don't all have as wealthy or as loving families.
You havent proved the blackpill wrong, all you've done is shown me links to studies showing a link between academic performance and wealth. Thats obvious.
The fact rich people have it the easiest is not a negation of the black pill. I wouldn't deny that, growing up with a two parent household and being at least middle class are the biggest determiners of success. Yet your looks still matter, especially if you want to escape poverty, only one look at tiktok shows the vanity of people.
Oh I'm sure, the researchers tell you that if you are not getting laid and feel hard done by genes and life to act like this (this post is sarcasm):
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/14/uk/plymouth-shooting-incel-jake-davison-profile-intl/index.html
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019089834/police-foiled-an-ohio-incels-plot-to-kill-women-in-a-mass-shooting-prosecutors-s
Please stop denying that it is just about rage and deep seething hatred.
Reverse causation? these studies get peer reviewed studied by sociologists, all kinds of researchers, any complaints you think of im sure they have thought of themselves and discussed it. I don't believe your reverse triangle, the researchers dont, so i dont.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1olaz9/were_rich_class_people_taller_than_commoners/
It's also nutrition from childhood and general habits of how one carries themselves that the parents do/don't correct.
More men are becoming increasingly lonely, this is objectively true. More men are going without wives, lovers. Not that im an incel myself, im not. I do however see where the movement has came from this psychology if we look at the data.
I think the first data to show you is that wealth matters more than talent, if we talk trends. Again refer to 2-posts-ago from me for deeper explanation:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-life-born-rich-vs-talented-20181010-story.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6261249/Children-wealthy-parents-successful-gifted-kids-born-low-income-families.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/money-academic-success-us-college-intelligence-born-rich-genomics-new-york-university-a8585821.html
HOWEVER you seem to want proof of a link between being wealthy now and DNA that makes you more likely to have traits that can be used to your advantage, not only due to the wealth, that comes here:
https://qz.com/1292691/researchers-have-identified-a-link-between-genetics-and-wealth-inequality/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5934673/Being-rich-successful-really-genes-study-suggests.html
the problem is that many sources I can use here can be twisted by you to support the reverse-causation type thing.
https://guardian.ng/features/being-rich-and-successful-is-in-your-dna/
Like this ^
That's true. We must check our biases and sadly trends show people have a bias towards tall men as leaders. This is why education on this is important, this is why inceldom has skyrocketed recently and we see men shooting up schools over it. We didnt see this 30 years ago, yet if you look at my round 1 argument, the stastics since 2008 make everything clear, it shows where this movement has come from.
If you specifically mean politics as in the electable 'face' types, people do indeed have a habit of associating height with 'I wanna vote that dude', not people like you and myself perhaps but people who aren't very critical thinkers and vote on impulse.
You're literally arguing rich people are bigger, stronger and smarter than non rich people on average genetically. This is really incorrect, wealth within a family usually only lasts for two generations before it is lost.
We can just look to politicians who didnt grow up in political familes, such as joe biden. Hes a farm boy! hes still 6 foot though, hes now 5'11 from age.
Give me data showing that rich people are taller not because of a privileged upbringing but because of genetics.
"In the last one hundred years in US history the tallest presidential candidates received more popular votes in 88% of the elections, and won 84% of the time."
You're literally just assuming all of this, you have no data to support the idea that people born richer are genetically more prone to being taller. Literally just 200 years ago the average dutch male was 5'4, you're making this up off the top of your head as you go on as it sounds right.
What you don't get is this.
In the past, the wealthy could mate with taller and 'sexier' people and over time, the smarter could as well depending on their people-skills as all kinds of competition happened.
This means that the DNA of people who happen to be born wealthier often is also more likely to be people who are taller but in terms of attractiveness it's not a guarantee as such for sure (because rich men who are ugly can easily date gold-digger types and I say that without resentment, finding love is another matter).
Let me put it a different way to you, it is very unlikely that someone born into an already successful family is themselves BOTH ugly, unintelligent, physically weak AND emotionally unstable. If they are all 4, they're in the minority of the wealthy, not the norm. Yes, I would consider Donald Trump an anomaly but he's not super weak physically, just overall poor in the other areas and selectively lazy if he feels he can get away with it.
In general, you will find that due to this trend, your relationship ends up true (but backwards as to why) due to the things I explained in the previous post.
You cannot deny the facts, the empirical data. your philosophical inquiries have nothing on the data. Once we get to the realm of scientific data, i don't care for philosophy anymore, im not going to need equally strong evidence in data to change my opinion, this is not the case in something like meta-ethics, philosophy wont change my mind.
Folk wisdom about U.S. presidential politics holds that the taller of the two major-party candidates always wins or almost always wins since the advent of the televised presidential debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States
literally just look at this shit and tell me you seriously think height only matters in dating. Why are tall men so overrepresented in the white house? why are they so overrepresented in CEO positions?
Trump would not of become president if he was 5'4.
And yes, your race also matters as i pointed out in the debate, its going to be objectively harder being a 5'4 indian man as opposed to a 5'4 white man.
I doubt you would be disagreeing with me at all, if i switched nothing but changed it from looks but to race.
It goes beyond charming people, it goes into how people perceive you too. Why are almost no US presidents in US history below 6 feet tall? Life is going to be a uphill battle not just in dating but in school and the workplace too for shorter and uglier people.
can I be clear on something...
Is your claim that shorter men and less attractive people have a harder time charming people in their life, as a trend?
I'd agree to that and nothing more that you're suggesting.
Why dont we talk about the suicide rate of short men? whats the reason for that, whats the reason for the higher substance abuse and less money, even when all known factors are controlled for, this is why they say "genetically determined height" not just height. Rules out nutrition and environment factors.
If you want to argue ugliness and how "subjective" it is, why dont you talk about the studies i provided on height, since how tall someone isnt subjective.
You appear to be brainstorming about human origins from the top of your head, making assumption after assumption based on your knowledge of human history thus far. I've not been tricked into anything. I'm simply looking at the data unbiasedly and coming to conclusions as I do with everything else. I'm not an emotional thinker. I have no reason to believe anything of what you just said over the studies I've read, as they're currently the better evidence. They said they accounted for all known variables. I have to take them at their word until better evidence comes out to the contrary. Girls desire hot men, yet they were forced to be with the guy with the most power in the past. Yet they want the hot guy sexually. Human history is naturally hypergamous. Your argument only stands by the fact that men literally oppressed women so that they wouldn't be hypergamous with the same men. Then your other arguments on nutrition, growing up, etc., the studies talk about and account for. That's why they say "genetically" determined height, not simply height.
We are continuing from here: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3291/comment-links/40371
I am now going to reveal the crucial way your thinking has tricked you into incel propaganda and where the correlation starts to fall short.
Firstly, notice how you repeatedly order your relationships between data in the comments in that debate vs me you suddenly said this:
"There is a correlation between being ugly and having an averagely lower income. The statistics I used take into account a person's starting socio-economic starting place, their education, etc. especially on the suicide rates for shorter men in Sweden."
Okay, now try and first reverse it and word it like this:
There is a correlation between being having an averagely lower income and ending up less attractive. The statistics I used take into account a person's starting socio-economic starting place, their education, etc.
Suddenly, your brain can SEE another path by which the relationship is drawn (this isn't an insult, I am trying to show you how involuntary confirmation bias is plaguing your entire Rounds of this 'black pill' debate and how people get sucked into a deep bitterness over things they don't need to hate).
So, first let's concede a little bit, played over many generations of the past, the wealthier and more physically built males were able to get physically attractive females and so over time at least for the females your correlation probably has truth to it. The past was sexist, there's not really any debating that while we evolved as a species that power and status as well as strength landed you hotter babes that other men would want back then it honestly overall was that way and the women sought a protector more than a hot guy, which begins to really reverse the dynamic of 'black pill' by suggesting males led to this.
Secondly, consider that throughout a poor person's life, they get less access to good nutrition growing up, much more stress (while studying at 16 they're already seeking physically demanding parttime employment just to make ends meet for their family and barely can study at home, needing to almost always share a room with someone else). So, combine the malnourishment with stress as well as total lack of money to go to good gyms, good health physicians, good (or better than good) psychiatrists etc... Suddenly the etc backfires on YOU and it starts to make sense that not only that adds up but AGAIN, if you reverse the evolutionary clock and combine it with the nutrition and stress, that taller, stronger adults happen to be correlated with higher income households.
You're only looking at the end-result, that they ended up richer but most rich people were born richer... Just how it works. So, start to think sociologically rather than purely biologically and a lot more starts to play into it.
Each to their own devices, jah.
And likely some pursuits more likely to bear fruit, than others.
statistics absolutely do matter if you're in the bottom 20% of men, statistically speaking we have 2x more female ancestors than male ones because the top men would have multiple women at one time. Half of all men failed to reproduce while most females didnt. This hypergamy remains true in the modern day.