Instigator / Pro
1776
rating
404
debates
67.45%
won
Topic

If your girlfriend were a rational woman, she would french kiss me while you watch.

Status
Debating

Waiting for the contender's fourth argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
14,500
Contender / Con
1497
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Resolved: If your girlfriend were a rational woman, she would french kiss me while you watch

Definitions 
  • Rational: Having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense. 
  • Woman: An adult female human being. 
  • French Kiss: A French kiss, also known as cataglottism or a tongue kiss, is an amorous kiss in which the participants' tongues extend to touch each other's lips or tongue. A kiss with the tongue stimulates the partner's lips, tongue and mouth, which are sensitive to the touch and induce physiological sexual arousal
  • Watch: Look at or observe attentively over a period of time.
Burden of proof 
  • The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to Disprove [1]. Pro serving as the instigator of this debate carries the full burden of proof and must prove the resolution of the debate, beyond any doubt, that If [my] girlfriend were a rational woman, she would french kiss me while you watch. 
Interpretation of the resolution
  • Pro's claim rests on the idea that If [my] girlfriend were a rational woman, she would French kiss me while you watch. 
  • It is quite obvious that pro is addressing the contender of the debate by using possessive pronouns, but the resolution presupposes I have a girlfriend, a proposition that the instigator is burdened to prove.
  • In order for pro to have a foundational case, he must provide evidence that I, in fact, have a girlfriend. 
  • If it is the case that I do not have a girlfriend, or that pro is unable to show evidence that I do, the resolution inherently fails because the subject of the debate does not exist in reality making the assertion epistemically impossible. 
Rationality and the harms of kissing 
  • Pro has not shown evidence that the resolution presented is epistemically possible. Until that is the case, my case as the contender will be to simply show the irrational nature of the intended actions within the resolution. I argue that French kissing in of itself is not at all a rational choice. 
  • It is no secret among the medical community that kissing can spread sexually transmitted diseases and infections. For example, "also called oral herpes, HSV-1 can easily be passed on through kissing. It’s also common: 67 percent of people under 50 have the virus in their bodies" [2]. Among these listed by Healthline are Syphilis, Cytomegalovirus, and Herpes, some of the deadliest sexually transmitted diseases that exist. 
  • For all we know, pro could be carrying any one of these diseases and we can't know otherwise until he posts his medical records. 
  • Given that pro has the full burden of proof, he must prove that he is free of such ailments and that is only of course if he manages to prove I have a girlfriend primarily. If not, he cannot possibly say this would be the rational course of actions. 
  • Now if pro manages to prove both points, he still must show how a French kiss is the rational choice in this situation. Especially when women have a 3 times greater risk of contracting many STDs such as gonorrhea [3] and the large majority of people under 50 carry sexually transmitted infection viruses [2].
  • For pro to even argue that a significantly inequitable risk of contracting some of the most severe sexual diseases is the rational choice for a woman is self evidently very misogynistic in showing a clear sex based bais and prejudice against them. 
Conclusion 
  • For pro to even be on a standing where he can argue in this debate, he must first prove I have a girlfriend lest the resolution automatically fails from being epistemically impossible. 
  • Pro must then show beyong any doubt that the rational choice would be to "French kiss him while [I] watch." 
  • In order for con to win this debate, I must simply show any reason to counter the latter but that is only if pro has met his primary burden of proof. 
Sources 
  1. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
  2. https://www.healthline.com/health/sexually-transmitted-diseases/
  3. https://stdcenterny.com/articles/
Round 2
Pro
Disclaimer: Some/most of this is satire, please take it as me playing devil's advocate. My opinion of women and life are not defined in this debate, I'm arguing competitively on a side I don't necessarily agree with outside of this.

I forfeited Round One on purpose

It was deceptive of me, it threw away solid 14.5k characters of content I could have put towards my win condition and I just threw it away. I did it to cheat my opponent into letting me know where he's (or she or they but I will give some proof that as I am a cis male there's rationality in kissing me regardless for long-term reasons) coming from here.

I thank my opponent for helping us understand how fragile life is.

Deaths per Day:166,279
  • Hour:6,928
  • Minute:115
  • Second:1.92

Let's take a moment to appreciate that we can die at any second, could have been from Covid, could be from an STI that Con's girlfriend got from kissing them (I go with 'them' as Con didn't reveal gender).

So, I deny I have any STI/STD's at present, I deny she would catch one from me and am innocent until proven guilty, surely. If Con has an alternative framework that means she should operate on suspicion of STI's, I assert that we should presume she got STI's already from Con and that she's on limited time anyway and should enjoy her last few days by experimenting as much as possible if it's life-threatening or not caring about STI's as she's doomed relatively if Con is correct with how bad they all are (Con isn't but some are definitely bad and I'd say why not kiss?)

In other words, the STI point is nearly a zero-sum game except I'll buy into the idea that from the girlfriend's perspective, Con is entitled to say she has to realise that I am a 'risk' as she doesn't know me well but then I could even say she attends a blood test with me at the hospital for STI testing and that that in no shape or form is ruled out as a prerequisite for the resolution's actions to take place.



Now, let's discuss the meaning of life.

Is the meaning of life to preserve oneself alone? No, we are a reproductive species and even those that don't have offspring of their own have this innate urge to leave a mark, positive or negative, before passing. I'm not here to argue that instincts are correct, after all I'm arguing against the instinct to be monogamous and the instinct to cheat on Con with a marvellous alpha male (or sigma male) like myself and to instead make it open swinging, if not polyamory.

What I am instead arguing is that a rational woman would realise that her fundamental role in our ecosystem is to garner high value males to spread their seed and if not into her womb at the very least to keep their appetite going and confidence level.

She could be potentially saving me, since she doesn't know if I'm some loser who hasn't kissed for years (or at all) let alone fucked and is on the verge of suicide, needing that one little burst of 'wow I am desirable' to keep me going. Furthermore, that could boost my testosterone levels on top of confidence and happiness to become a better male provider, protector and member of our species that spreads his seed and does right by his purpose in this life.

If she were rational, she'd also want to know that she was with a high value male (or female or whatever Con is identifying as) herself. If Con is a bad kisser or is super insecure about things, the sooner that this rational woman rids herself of that low value tendency and behaviour the less it will hurt herself and Con than if she drags out the relationship. Even if she is totally satisfied sexually and intimately, the experiment would help her even positively if she enjoys Con's envy and passion afterwards. They may even unlock a cuckolding (or cuckqueaning if Con is female) kink in Con. A rational woman would be considering all the options available and how to make best use of them for both herself and the overarching species as well as ecosystem. 

The relationship she has with Con is just one of many possibilities for her in life. She'd need to know that and even consider being single and frisky.

That cute Kritik from Con, I better address it.

In order for pro to have a foundational case, he must provide evidence that I, in fact, have a girlfriend. 
  • If it is the case that I do not have a girlfriend, or that pro is unable to show evidence that I do, the resolution inherently fails because the subject of the debate does not exist in reality making the assertion epistemically impossible. 
No. This is an 'if-then' debate. In other words, if Con lacks a girlfriend it is as irrelevant as if Con had a girlfriend who was not a rational woman. 

I am aware that this will become a hair-picking central point that Con tries to drive home all debate so I won't brush it away with just defining the word 'if', instead I will discuss semantics and the way a debate title has to be structured.

If I made this debate 'if Con has a girlfriend and she is a rational woman' this would then unfairly open me to the attack that Con can say that Con either is not into women or that Con's girlfriends wouldn't be rational women, Con even could kritik that no fully rational woman exists for Con to have as a girlfriend. The reason I structured it how I did is that the girlfriend of 'you' is a presumed entity present here and the if is about her being a rational woman.

If I would say 'rational women would kiss me while their boyfriends watch' that becomes a pluralistic issue. Furthermore, the 'you' is just as easily referring to any reader at all and their potential girlfriend, yes that means even female readers.

I will get to this later and see how Con handles it, I amhappy to go into what 'if' means and how if-then logic works in the next Round.


If we eliminate satisfaction (I am not, but if we did) there still remain rational reasons for Con's girlfriend to do what she's doing.

Do you know why 'cheating' is called cheating?

I tried to use a search engine to find out and barely anything delved into what's being cheated. The win condition of a relationship clearly lies outside of loyalty if one can cheat to attain it. Instead, the win condition must be to do with the fact that if one is going behind the other's back to act in ways the other doesn't approve of, they are violating the trust and faith the other put in them (I'm happy to back this with sources as this seemed the common theme in what I read up).

That is why it is called cheating and not just being a whore, slut etc. The cheated party participated in a 'game' where the win condition was mutual trust, comfort and connection.

A rational woman would not want to cheat, she'd want to talk Con into releasing the restrictions normally placed on monogamous women and experiment in a way that lets her garner the same degree of 'value' that a cheater gets without the price they pay if they are caught (even if they are not caught why bother with the guilt and/or needing to cover it up)?

Con may say they'd dump her if she'd kiss me while they watched and refuse all suggestions but what better way to test Con's manliness (or value as a lesbian partner or whatever) than to see if Con truly can stick to their guns and dump the rational woman? Why would you not test the boundaries to their maximum if you were rational?

I ask you why she wouldn't do this, give me the rational reasons.


Death and reproduction re-explored

The gene-centred view of evolution that Dawkins championed and crystallized is now central both to evolutionary theorizing and to lay commentaries on natural history such as wildlife documentaries. A bird or a bee risks its life and health to bring its offspring into the world not to help itself, and certainly not to help its species — the prevailing, lazy thinking of the 1960s, even among luminaries of evolution such as Julian Huxley and Konrad Lorenz — but (unconsciously) so that its genes go on. Genes that cause birds and bees to breed survive at the expense of other genes. No other explanation makes sense, although some insist that there are other ways to tell the story (see K. Laland et alNature 514, 161–164; 2014).

What stood out was Dawkins's radical insistence that the digital information in a gene is effectively immortal and must be the primary unit of selection. No other unit shows such persistence — not chromosomes, not individuals, not groups and not species. These are ephemeral vehicles for genes, just as rowing boats are vehicles for the talents of rowers (his analogy).

I would like to assert that I am a fertile man (adult male human). I am not saying that con's girlfriend is either fertile or seeking pregnancy here but perhaps either she is or would want to seduce me to then lead me to reproduce with a woman she sets me up with later once she knows for sure that at the very least I'm a great kisser. If I were a terrible kisser, she'd want to know and see how well I can learn and adapt. Both scenarios work out for her, from a rational perspective.

Even if she gets an STI, they don't kill instantly and she'd endure it for the sake of her scientific duty to the species and ecosystem... However, I did say I'd get blood-tested for STI's in this scenario if she and Con insisted on it, no strings attached. The resolution doesn't rule that out whatsoever.
Con
[re] "I forfeited..."
  • Pro states clearly: "I forfeited Round One on purpose."
  • Voters can essentially conclude I am to be awarded the conduct point (provided I maintain proper conduct) on this basis alone. 

I - Burden of proof
  • Pro does not dispute that he carries the full burden of proof for this debate. Con also does not dispute the framework. It must be concluded he accepts it. 

Rebuttal 
[A]. The existence of a said girlfriend
For pro to have a foundational case, he must provide evidence that I, in fact, have a girlfriend. 
  • If it is the case that I do not have a girlfriend, or that pro is unable to show evidence that I do, the resolution inherently fails because the subject of the debate does not exist in reality making the assertion epistemically impossible. 
No. This is an 'if-then' debate. In other words, if Con lacks a girlfriend it is as irrelevant as if Con had a girlfriend who was not a rational woman. 
  • I agree that this is an if-then debate. In this structure: 
  • IF [my] girlfriend was a rational woman, THEN [she] would kiss [pro] while [I] watch. 
  • This presupposes that my girlfriend exists in reality, in other words, I have a girlfriend, within the first part of the conditional.  
  • Whether or not this woman is rational is not presupposed, whether or not she exists is, and must be proven. 
  • For what pro is saying to be true the resolution must have been structured: 
  • IF pro had a rational girlfriend, THEN [she] would kiss [pro] while [I] watch. 
The reason I structured it how I did is that the girlfriend of 'you' is a presumed entity present here and the if is about her being a rational woman.
  • However, pro stated the words "your girlfriend." Your by default is a referential possessive pronoun and most obviously in direct reference to the contender of the debate.
  • For us to believe this moving of the goalposts otherwise, pro must have stated in the rules of the description that he is using specific words out of their commonplace usage. Pro did not state anything in the description even despite being specifically warned in the comments section [2]. 
  • Pro should have used words such as "If one had," or "If a person had." But pro did not, and thus commits himself to prove the existence of my girlfriend. Pro makes an epistemic claim in the resolution, and if the resolution is epistemically impossible, it automatically fails. 

[B]. STD's
  • Pro does not object to any of the significant STD risks presented, nor does pro object to the three times disproportionate risk women have of contracting STDs through sexual contact such as french kissing. 
  • As I stated in round one, "given that pro has the full burden of proof, he must prove that he is free of such ailments and that is only of course if he manages to prove I have a girlfriend primarily. If not, he cannot possibly say this would be the rational course of action. 
  • Con must prove that french kissing a stranger is the rational case; the sound judgment. The most show that he isn't a carrier of harmful diseases, some viruses which we already know the significant majority of people have in their bodies [2]. 
So, I deny I have an STI/STD at present, I deny she would catch one from me, and am innocent until proven guilty, surely. 
  • Saying "I deny," is not sufficient evidence, in fact, this statement hardly means anything. 
  • Contrary to what pro believes, he is not "innocent until proven guilty." Pro has the full burden of proof here. He is arguing that it would be the rational choice for a specific woman to french kiss him. He must prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, and must thus prove he is free of any STD or ailment that would prove this to be far from the rational decision. 
I assert that we should presume she got STIs already from Con and that she's on limited time anyway and should enjoy her last few days by experimenting as much as possible if it's life-threatening 
  • Pro is simply moving the goalposts here. The resolution of the debate is "If your girlfriend were a rational woman, she would french kiss me while you watch." No other provisions have been made in the description
  • We are debating nothing apart from this proposition. Therefore, we can not and will not presume anything.
I could even say she attends a blood test with me at the hospital for STI testing and that that in no shape or form is ruled out as a prerequisite for the resolution's actions to take place.
  • Pro argues that he could theoretically have this person "attend a blood test with me at the hospital."
  • However, this is entirely irrelevant. If pro already has STDs, his blood test will simply show this at the hospital. 
  • Pro must prove he is free of them to show that the rational decision would be to engage in this sexual activity with him. 
  • In fact, we can add many other factors that pro is burdened to control for. We don't know anything about pro. He could be a drug dealer, have a criminal record, etc. If pro has the full burden of proof, pro must present a case evaluation that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that engaging in said sexual activity with him on the face of it is a rational decision.

[C]. [re] The meaning of life
  • Pro argues that the rational woman would realize her fundamental role to "garner high value males." He even does as far as to state that this is "a scientific duty to the species and ecosystem." 
  • Pro has not proven that we have a specific scientific duty and seems to argue for it ontologically based on the nature of reality. 
  • This is simply the is-ought gap fallacy which attempts to make conclusions about the way things should be based on the evidence about the way things are [5]. 
  • Logically fallacious reasoning is the opposite of a rational sound judgment, and this, con's argument fails. 

[D]. Cheating 
  • Pro then says "a rational woman would not want to cheat," and I agree with him.  
  • Pro argues that it is the rational decision for such a woman to experiment with various forms of relationships simultaneously. However, this is far from the case. 
  • Rationality is contingent on reasons. In order to evaluate said reasons, we must know relevant and important facts that would create premises that reveal the rationality of any decision. Rationality is not based on broad arbitrary principles, and this s a mistake con makes in this aspect of his argument. 

[E]. Sexuality
I would like to assert that I am a fertile man (adult male human)
  • I have been calling pro he for the course of the debate based on previous statements of his gender, this included but in all truth, pro has shown no real evidence that he is a male. This is another claim pro must prove (although I will continue to refer with "he" unless pro objects based on pro's discretion). 
  • Following this, pro must also prove that he has knowledge of who my girlfriend is attracted to, in order to prove it would be the rational choice to engage in a sexual act with whatever sex he is. 

My expanded constructive
I will state here the points of my case that show that pro has not upheld his burden of proof. 
  • We don't know if pro has dangerous STDs or not, and he has not shown that he is free of them. 
  • Pro has not proven my girlfriend exists in reality. 
  • We don't know pro's age, and the pro does not know the potential age of this woman. Pro could be 32 and this woman could potentially be 15, or vice versa. As children can't give consent [4], it is not rational to engage in non-consensual relationships.
  • We don't know if pro is a male or female, and pro does not know this woman's sexuality. It is not rational to override your inherent sexuality.
  • We don't know whether it is the rational choice to engage in such sexual activity with pro. Pro mentions "high-value males," yet has shown no evidence that he is such, or far from a reprehensible person such as a wife-beater, drug addict, or alcoholic. 

Sources
  1. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/
  2. comments section
  3. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2005/12/
  4. https://www.stopitnow.org/ohc-content/
  5. https://academy4sc.org/video/

Round 3
Pro
I will state here the points of my case that show that pro has not upheld his burden of proof. 
  • We don't know if pro has dangerous STDs or not, and he has not shown that he is free of them. 
I said in prior Round that she can come to my STI test with me. All countries have them these days. Where are we kissing? US?

Hey why don't you be a champ and pay for me to test at home with you before I kiss your girlfriend?

At-home STI testing

At-home test kits for certain STIs, such as HIV, chlamydia and gonorrhea, have been gaining acceptance and popularity. For home STI testing, you collect a urine sample or an oral or genital swab and then send it to a lab for analysis.

Some tests require more than one sample. The benefit of home testing is that you're able to collect the sample in the privacy of your home without the need for a pelvic exam or office visit.

However, tests done on samples you collect yourself may have a higher rate of false-positive results, meaning that the test indicates you have an STI that you really don't have. If you test positive from a home test, contact your doctor or a public health clinic to confirm the test results. If your home test results are negative, but you're experiencing symptoms, contact your doctor or a public health clinic to confirm the results.
Positive test results

If you test positive for an STI, the next step is to consider further testing and then get treatment as recommended by your doctor. In addition, inform your sex partners. Your partners need to be evaluated and treated, because you can pass some infections back and forth.

Expect to feel many emotions. You may feel ashamed, angry or afraid. It may help to remind yourself that you've done the right thing by getting tested so that you can inform your partners and get treated. Talk with your doctor about your concerns.

  • Pro has not proven my girlfriend exists in reality. 
I will expand on handling this Kritik now.

As I stated in my previous Round, if I said 'if you have a girlfriend that is a rational woman' this can still open me up to 'but I don't date rational women' or 'that's not my type and they don't exist' type BS. The reason I didn't keep going too hard down the hypothetical line is because it's a given that we're dealing with a hypothetical here.

The title of the debate is not 'if your girlfriend is a rational woman, she will...' instead what does it read? That is correct, it reads 'if your girlfriend were a rational woman, she would...'

I would also like to point out I did not say was but were. 

What Is the Subjunctive Mood? (with Examples)
The subjunctive mood is the verb form used to explore a hypothetical situation (e.g., "If I were you") or to express a wish, a demand, or a suggestion (e.g., "I demand he be present").

To make it clearer why The Kritik from Con is fallacious and against the entiree spirit of debating, let's observe how this works in a more 'normal' or 'standard' hypothetical.

'If Abraham Lincoln were president of Ukraine right now, he would have surrendered.'

This is never going to be allowed by voters to be won by a Kritik 'but Obama isn't Ukranian'and that's actually a stronger Kritik than Con is using here. Instead, Con's Kritik reads as 'but Obama isn't in Ukraine right now'. That is literally what is going on here.

In fact, the real Kritik angle Con would use to equal this situation is 'but Pro hasn't proven that Lincoln is alive now'.

These kind of things can be entertaining debating if done correctly but the nature of Con's Kritik is to completely and utterly avoid the discussion of if his/her girlfriend were rational she'd french kiss me while he/she watches. 

  • We don't know pro's age, and the pro does not know the potential age of this woman. Pro could be 32 and this woman could potentially be 15, or vice versa. As children can't give consent [4], it is not rational to engage in non-consensual relationships.
It is also not rational for you to be in a relationship with an underage woman, I am not sure where you're going with that. You see, if you were so young you had to worry about dicussing doing these things, you shouldn't have accepted. If you aren't and are going for someone who is that young, well that's your problem to justify to the audience why you did that. The rest of my arguments stand. If anything all you have proven is she may be rational to do it but I'd be irrational to do it.

I am not sure what this angle is about.
  • We don't know if pro is a male or female, and pro does not know this woman's sexuality. It is not rational to override your inherent sexuality.
What is that meant to mean? I am a male and it is rational to override instincts for the sake of experimentalism and getting arousal going to encourage the continuation of our species.
  • We don't know whether it is the rational choice to engage in such sexual activity with pro. Pro mentions "high-value males," yet has shown no evidence that he is such, or far from a reprehensible person such as a wife-beater, drug addict, or alcoholic. 
And where is your evidence that I am? If anything, you could be the wife-beater and I'm her way out. What exactly is the point of that statement?

Con has not understood the ultimate underlying point of my case:

It is rational to experiment and do it. It is rational to not cheat behind Con's back if she is capable of talking Con into doing it and a rational woman would give good, rational arguments to Con to justify it.

The biggest aspect here is that the rational approach to pleasure and intimacy is to start at maximal experimentation and fluidity and work your way backwards, it isn't to start at a monogamous simplistic way of being and work your way up.

If you think about raw human beings, the men would battle over many women and the alphas would win them all. I am not saying I'd 'win' in this hypothetical, for this debate I can be a bad guy and bad kisser. The point is why would a rational woman not want to be what we call 'slutty'? Why would she hesitate to push her boyfriend to swing alongside her and have experimental fun?

What reasons are there?

So far, we have STI's and a vague assertion that Con's girlfriend would be underage.

Even stranger is the fact that Con says we have no information on the girlfriend's sexuality, why do we have no information Con? I wonder who's withholding it?

It seems Con is trying to hide that she wants to kiss me but that is okay as a want is not to do with rationality.

Con
Overview
  • In this round, pro has mostly chosen to respond to my constructive argument. To make a few notes: 
  1. Pro bears the full burden of proof. He does not dispute this. This means pro must prove the resolution beyond any reasonable doubt. If even one of his arguments is proven wrong, the resolution fails. 
  2. Concerning the resolution, the voters are agnostic. I as con simply have to play the role of a skeptic. An extraordinary claim like this requires extraordinary and sufficient evidence. 
  3. So far, none of pro's arguments stand unrefuted, and he has hardly made a coherent case that proves the rational decision for a woman we don't know exists, would be to engage in sexual activity with an individual (pro) we know nothing about. 

The existence of a said "girlfriend": pro's epistemology
As I stated in my previous Round, if I said 'if you have a girlfriend that is a rational woman' this can still open me up to 'but I don't date rational women' or 'that's not my type and they don't exist' type BS.
  • Pro's response is peculiar here, but irrelevant. We aren't debating whether or not different forms of the resolution would commit pro to additional flaws. This is already an inherently flawed proposition. The argument on this point is that the resolution—"If [my] girlfriend were a rational woman, she would French kiss [pro] while [I] watch"—is ontologically committed to the asserted existence of my girlfriend. 
I would also like to point out I did not say was but were. 

What Is the Subjunctive Mood? (with Examples)
The subjunctive mood is the verb form used to explore a hypothetical situation (e.g., "If I were you") or to express a wish, a demand, or a suggestion (e.g., "I demand he be present").
  • That does not alter the presuppositions made in the conditional. 
  • There is no dispute that the resolution is hypothetical, but it is a hypothetical that states an ontological premise in the first part of its conditional. Whether by mistake or not, pro commits himself to defend the assumption that I have a girlfriend. 
To make it clearer why The Kritik from Con is fallacious and against the entiree spirit of debating, let's observe how this works in a more 'normal' or 'standard' hypothetical.

'If [Obama] were president of Ukraine right now, he would have surrendered.'

This is never going to be allowed by voters to be won by a Kritik 'but Obama isn't Ukranian'and that's actually a stronger Kritik than Con is using here. Instead, Con's Kritik reads as 'but Obama isn't in Ukraine right now'. That is literally what is going on here.
  • NOTE: Pro uses both Abraham Lincoln and Obama interchangeably (I suspect my mistake) so I will assume he meant Obama. Regardless, I will rebut this analogy. 
  • The "Kritik" con ascribes to me is nothing close to what I am arguing. 
  • Let's reiterate our knowledge of philosophy to be on the same page. A conditional is a proposition in the form of if p, then qP is the antecedent, and q is the consequent [1c]. 
  • The conditional stated here by pro is in this structure: 
IF [Obama] were president of Ukraine right now (pTHEN he would have surrendered (q). 
  • The first part of the conditional makes a hypothetical case of if Barrack Obama was the president of Ukraine. 
  • Barrack Obama exists in reality, he is a real person. However, pro has no evidence that my girlfriend is a real person. 
  • The analogy that correctly illustrates my objection to the resolution would be based on this conditional: 
IF  Barrack Obama's son was president of Ukraine right now (pTHEN he would have surrendered (q). 
  • Barrack Obama does not have a son, he only has two daughters [3c]. His son does not exist in reality so it is impossible for this conditional resolution to be true. 
  • Pro could argue that Obama has a secret son out of wedlock, but in the same way as this debate, he must show evidence that this person exists. This is my objection. 

STD/STIs
I said in prior Round that she can come to my STI test with me. All countries have them these days. Where are we kissing? US?
  • I don't think my opponent even understands the counterargument I made in round two, and he just repeats the same claim so I will clarify for the voters, and let him say whatever he wants. 
  • If con already has STDs, the test will just show that he has them, so this is entirely irrelevant. An STD test doesn't make a disease disappear, it just shows whether or not you have an STD. 
  • I am not concerned about whether or not pro can take an STD test, what matters is whether or not he has STDs because it is not the rational choice for a woman to engage in sexual activity with a person who has a dangerous sexual disease especially when women have up to a 300% greater [2. round 1] disproportionate risk of contracting STDs in respect to men. 
  • Pro has now shown evidence that he is free of these dangerous sexually transmitted diseases. 
  • Pro has the full burden of proof in this debate. If he is proposing that the rational decision for my perceived girlfriend would be to engage in sexual activity with him, he is burdened to prove he is a person with whom this would be the rational choice to do so. 

Age
  • In my constructive, I posit that we don't know pro's age. Pro could be 50 and my girlfriend (whom we don't know exists in reality) could be 15. Vice versa, my "girlfriend" could be 29 and pro could be 15. Given that children cannot consent to relationships with adults it is not rational to engage in such a relationship. Pro's response is: 
It is also not rational for you to be in a relationship with an underage woman, I am not sure where you're going with that. You see, if you were so young you had to worry about discussing doing these things, you shouldn't have accepted. If you aren't and are going for someone who is that young, well that's your problem to justify to the audience why you did that. 
  • Pro says "it is also not rational for you to be in a relationship with an underage woman," but pro does not know my age either. I could be underage: 15 for all he knows. According to site rules, users only have to be 13 to be on the site. Many users on this site are just high schoolers. This is simply my opponent trying to obfuscate. Pro has the full burden of proof here. 
  • Pro says "if you were so young you had to worry about discussing doing these things, you shouldn't have accepted." That simply doesn't prove anything. A debate is a debate and anyone can accept a proposition they find amusing.
  • To engage in sexual activity with underage people who can't consent is statutory rape [2c] so there are two possible cases here. (1) pro is underage and this woman is an adult, or (2), my perceived girlfriend is underage and pro is an adult. 
  • In case one, my perceived girlfriend would be raping pro and it is not rational to rape people, in case two my girlfriend would be volunteering herself to be raped by pro and it is not rational to submit yourself to a sexual predator.

Sex/sexuality
  • In my constructive, I posit that we don't actually know the sex or sexuality of pro, and pro does not know the sex or sexuality of my girlfriend (whom he has not proven to exist). 
What is that meant to mean? I am a male
  • Saying "I am a male," does not prove you are a male any more than me saying "pro is a millionaire" proves he is a millionaire. Pro has the full burden of proof here. We simply don't know what he is. We have no evidence. 

"High-value"
  • We don't know whether it is the rational choice to engage in such sexual activity with pro. Pro mentions "high-value males," yet has shown no evidence that he is such, or far from a reprehensible person such as a wife-beater, drug addict, or alcoholic. 
And where is your evidence that I am? If anything, you could be the wife-beater and I'm her way out. What exactly is the point of that statement?
  • Pro, you have the burden of proof here. I am simply stating pro has not provided evidence that he is the "high value" male he posits he is. Pro has not shown evidence that he is a person with whom engaging in such sexual activity would be the rational choice. 
  • If you think I am any of these things then prove it. 
why do we have no information Con?
  • Because pro, you have the full burden of proof. You made a proposition that asserts I have a girlfriend, and you have shown no evidence of this. 
  • You have shown no evidence that you are an individual in which this woman engaging in sexual activity would be the rational case. For us to even consider your case, this must be proven. 

Rebuttal
The biggest aspect here is that the rational approach to pleasure and intimacy is to start at maximal experimentation and fluidity and work your way backwards, it isn't to start at a monogamous simplistic way of being and work your way up.
  • This is incorrect. You are only attracted or orientated towards certain people, most usually, specific sex or gender. Having sexual activity with people you are not orientated toward may have serious mental, psychological, and emotional ramifications because of the biological and psychological nature of sexual orientation. This is why the rational decision is to be slow, careful, and cautious with sexual activity. If all the factors I mentioned are not accounted for, however, we can't even get to this stage of the debate. 
  • Con's case of "maximal experimentation" is not a rationally sound judgment.

Conclusion 
  • What do we have thus far? The resolution is: If [my] girlfriend were a rational woman, she would French kiss [pro] while [I] watch.
    • Con has not proven that my girlfriend exists
    • Con has not proven that he is a person with who engaging in such a sexual activity would be the rational choice, meaning:
      1. Con has not proven he is free of STDs which can be contracted from French kissing [2. round 1] especially considering the majority of people carry some of these viruses in their bodied [3. round 1].
      2. Con has not proven my supposed girlfriend is of age for him, or that he is of age for her. It is not rational to rape people, nor is it rational to submit yourself to be raped voluntarily. 
      3. Con does not know, or has not attempted to prove the sexuality of this woman which he claims exists. This is pivotal 

Sources
  1. c. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0023.xml
  2. c. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape
  3. c. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Barack_Obama

Round 4
Pro
My premise is actually simple in my eyes.

A rational woman seeks to experience all that she can and all that others can as long as it doesn't have an ending that definitely would deter.

The ending seems to be that I have STD/STI and I offered to test myself with her there (even Con there too) and Con keeps pushing that line with fervor.

I have listed some reasons for her to experience it with me and believe I have won the debate. If this seems absurd to you that is alright, rationality isn't always conventional 'sensibility'. 
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet