Instigator / Pro
8
1510
rating
64
debates
53.91%
won
Topic
#5319
There is no meaningful difference in what attracts heterosexual females, they all fundamentally want the same type of male
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Best.Korea
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
14
1309
rating
274
debates
40.51%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
There are 3 primary factors when it comes to attracting heterosexual women, and that's not to say that there aren't other things that matter or that women don't have different tastes when it comes to less important factors, but ultimately I am of the opinion that any heterosexual female will have stronger attraction/feelings towards any male who is taller, more handsome and more "alpha" than a man who is less of those things.
When you look at males and lesbians for example, they can be attracted to taller or shorter people or anything in between but con will never be able to produce a single example of a heterosexual female who actually prefers shorter men even if he can find ones who CLAIM they don't care about height.
When it comes to women being attracted to alphaness, I have explored various BDSM communities and noticed that dommes (female version of doms) only truly prefer to be dominant in a loving, monogamous relationship when it is a lesbian relationship. When it's in a heterosexual context 99% of them are into having a paypig dynamic and/or cuckoldry and the only exceptions are when the male is so attractive/tall that they're willing to put up with his betaness or when the female has ASPD/NPD and is controlling in a very toxic way.
It should be a no brainer that more attractive = more attraction. People want to think that "love" is deeper than it is and that things like being a good person or intelligent are somehow more important to women when it comes to who they're attracted to, but in the real world the kind-hearted genius who is short and ugly gets no bitches and the tall handsome alpha male who is dumb as a box of rocks and a douche bag is out there slaying poon.
Due to the halo effect, people will judge a person differently based on how attractive they are and personality only counts when you reach a baseline of attractiveness. For example if two men are acting the exact same way around women and presenting as very shy and introverted, the tall and handsome one will be perceived as mysterious and the short and ugly one will be perceived as creepy. Women will see the Chad and say "It's giving sigma male" and they will see the incel and say "it's giving school shooter".
When you compare a Y chromosome to an X chromosome under a microscope, you don't just see an X chromosome that is missing a leg, you see something that looks more like 3 tiny connected balls than a full chromosome. Women have tons of extra genetic material compared to men, and you may think this makes women more diverse but you would be wrong. Most of those genes are repeating sequences that correct each other and make the female more likely to turn out average/normal whereas males are more likely stuck with either good genes or bad genes or somewhere in between. Women are more cemented in certain inherent instincts when it comes to what they're attracted to, and there is very strong and ancient programming imbedded in their DNA that makes them always select for taller, handsomer and more dominant males.
So why then do lesbians exist and actually have different tastes/less brutal standards? Because evolution has made it so that in order for a males genes to count, they have to really, really count compared to women because women are average by default but males are much more likely to either suck extremely hard or be extraordinary. It is the female who must care for the offspring and carry them for nine months, if she is going to reproduce she wants to make it count and only pick males who she sees as superior to herself and other males. It is also the female who is much more at risk of being raped, so the female genome has learned to not only not be attracted to but also HATE ugly/short/beta males. The average woman would be fine with it if all incel-tier men were rounded up into gas chambers and exterminated. Simply existing in proximity to women is enough for ugly men to make them feel "creeped out" which is really just an instinctive fear and loathing of the fact that there are inferior genes present that want to reproduce and could potentially force themselves on said females. Meanwhile a huge number of women have "rape fantasies" and what this really demonstrates is the fact that women start falling in love the second they are even around a Chad even if he is the biggest piece of shit on earth. Women want to be "raped" by Chads before they even have a proper conversation with them meanwhile they feel sexually assaulted by the mere existence of men they aren't physically attracted to.
When you look at males and lesbians for example, they can be attracted to taller or shorter people or anything in between but con will never be able to produce a single example of a heterosexual female who actually prefers shorter men even if he can find ones who CLAIM they don't care about height.
When it comes to women being attracted to alphaness, I have explored various BDSM communities and noticed that dommes (female version of doms) only truly prefer to be dominant in a loving, monogamous relationship when it is a lesbian relationship. When it's in a heterosexual context 99% of them are into having a paypig dynamic and/or cuckoldry and the only exceptions are when the male is so attractive/tall that they're willing to put up with his betaness or when the female has ASPD/NPD and is controlling in a very toxic way.
It should be a no brainer that more attractive = more attraction. People want to think that "love" is deeper than it is and that things like being a good person or intelligent are somehow more important to women when it comes to who they're attracted to, but in the real world the kind-hearted genius who is short and ugly gets no bitches and the tall handsome alpha male who is dumb as a box of rocks and a douche bag is out there slaying poon.
Due to the halo effect, people will judge a person differently based on how attractive they are and personality only counts when you reach a baseline of attractiveness. For example if two men are acting the exact same way around women and presenting as very shy and introverted, the tall and handsome one will be perceived as mysterious and the short and ugly one will be perceived as creepy. Women will see the Chad and say "It's giving sigma male" and they will see the incel and say "it's giving school shooter".
When you compare a Y chromosome to an X chromosome under a microscope, you don't just see an X chromosome that is missing a leg, you see something that looks more like 3 tiny connected balls than a full chromosome. Women have tons of extra genetic material compared to men, and you may think this makes women more diverse but you would be wrong. Most of those genes are repeating sequences that correct each other and make the female more likely to turn out average/normal whereas males are more likely stuck with either good genes or bad genes or somewhere in between. Women are more cemented in certain inherent instincts when it comes to what they're attracted to, and there is very strong and ancient programming imbedded in their DNA that makes them always select for taller, handsomer and more dominant males.
So why then do lesbians exist and actually have different tastes/less brutal standards? Because evolution has made it so that in order for a males genes to count, they have to really, really count compared to women because women are average by default but males are much more likely to either suck extremely hard or be extraordinary. It is the female who must care for the offspring and carry them for nine months, if she is going to reproduce she wants to make it count and only pick males who she sees as superior to herself and other males. It is also the female who is much more at risk of being raped, so the female genome has learned to not only not be attracted to but also HATE ugly/short/beta males. The average woman would be fine with it if all incel-tier men were rounded up into gas chambers and exterminated. Simply existing in proximity to women is enough for ugly men to make them feel "creeped out" which is really just an instinctive fear and loathing of the fact that there are inferior genes present that want to reproduce and could potentially force themselves on said females. Meanwhile a huge number of women have "rape fantasies" and what this really demonstrates is the fact that women start falling in love the second they are even around a Chad even if he is the biggest piece of shit on earth. Women want to be "raped" by Chads before they even have a proper conversation with them meanwhile they feel sexually assaulted by the mere existence of men they aren't physically attracted to.
Con
#2
All of your arguments are false.
I am of the opinion that any heterosexual female will have stronger attraction/feelings towards any male who is taller, more handsome and more "alpha" than a man who is less of those things.When you look at males and lesbians for example, they can be attracted to taller or shorter people or anything in between but con will never be able to produce a single example of a heterosexual female who actually prefers shorter men even if he can find ones who CLAIM they don't care about height.
I guess you never heard of heterosexual female pedophiles?
A common mistake, but it happens.
Round 2
Con
#4
False.
I dont see how you can even prove that assumption to defend your case.
You also said that chad is tall and alpha, and now you concede that he is short and weak in case of female pedophiles.
I also dont see any evidence of what every one of the 3 or 4 billion heterosexual women is attracted to.
At best, your arguments are all unprovable assumptions.
The sexual attraction greatly varies among men and women, and to claim that it doesnt vary among heterosexual women is just nonsense.
Just like some heterosexual men like boobs while some like flat chest, it would be nonsense to think that heterosexual women are an exception and dont vary.
Also, unless you have a way of proving here what every heterosexual woman is attracted to, I dont see your case being anything more than case built upon assumptions as premises.
Also, the claim that women want to be raped by chads makes me think that this is a troll debate.
Round 3
Pro
#5
You also said that chad is tall and alpha, and now you concede that he is short and weak in case of female pedophiles.
No, they go for the younger version of tall, handsome alpha males but keep in mind that "handsome" is the most important one. A 5'2 supermodel has more of a chance than a buff, 6'6 goblin-looking mother fucker.
I also dont see any evidence of what every one of the 3 or 4 billion heterosexual women is attracted to.
The evidence is that the taller, handsomer and more alpha you are the more likely you are to get gf and the guys who aren't particularly any of those things can only be settled for and try to compensate with stuff like money but never experience true love. If you want an abundantly clear example just download Tinder and see how easy it is to get women if you're a Chad and how difficult it is if you are anything less than an 8/10. The data from dating apps shows that 80% of women are only attracted to 10% of men (the tall and handsome ones) whereas the majority of men are attracted to average women.
You also can't provide a single example of a woman who prefers short men but there are men who prefer tall women even though most prefer average or shorter ones.
Just like some heterosexual men like boobs while some like flat chest, it would be nonsense to think that heterosexual women are an exception and dont vary.
Go on any social media with a fake female profile and you will get 1000 DMs per day from males even if it's an average female. Try the same thing with a fake male profile and only the stereotypical Chad profile will receive anywhere near the same attention. There are men who like tall women, short women, fat women, skinny women, dominant women, submissive women and so on. You can see examples of this everywhere, but you only see women simping over stereotypical alpha Chads.
Also, the claim that women want to be raped by chads makes me think that this is a troll debate.
Statistics show that women have rape fantasies and this includes the ones who do but wouldn't admit it in poles, so the number is actually massive. "Rape" is actually inaccurate though because what they really mean is "I wish some hot guy I don't even know would fuck me in a forceful way without getting my consent, even though I would totally be into it".
Con
#6
All of your arguments are unproven assumptions.
No, they go for the younger version of tall, handsome alpha males but keep in mind that "handsome" is the most important one. A 5'2 supermodel has more of a chance than a buff, 6'6 goblin-looking mother fucker.
Younger version of tall?
People arent born tall.
In fact, any woman most attracted to 4yo boys definitely isnt going for tall males.
Also, you are using circular logic.
"Handsome" is by definition attractive, so to say "they are attracted to handsome" doesnt tell us anything other than "they are attracted to what they are attracted to.".
Also, I dont see how a 4yo is alpha male, or alpha anything.
The evidence is that the taller, handsomer and more alpha you are the more likely you are to get gf and the guys who aren't particularly any of those things can only be settled for and try to compensate with stuff like money but never experience true love. If you want an abundantly clear example just download Tinder and see how easy it is to get women if you're a Chad and how difficult it is if you are anything less than an 8/10. The data from dating apps shows that 80% of women are only attracted to 10% of men (the tall and handsome ones) whereas the majority of men are attracted to average women.
The debate title doesnt say majority of women. It says "women", and the category "women" includes all women, not just 80% of them.
Also, not all women are on dating apps, so even "80%" is questionable as it is not taken from sample of all women.
You also can't provide a single example of a woman who prefers short men but there are men who prefer tall women even though most prefer average or shorter ones.
I did provide example.
And your case suffers from fatal flaw, because attraction occurs in mind, and you cant meassure it in any way to say that every woman has attraction to same type of male without meaningful difference.
There are basically two topics you had to prove:
1. There is no meaningful difference in what attracts heterosexual females,
2. they all fundamentally want the same type of male
The 2 clearly says "they all..."
All means all.
If just one doesnt, then the topic is proven false.
Since I provided clear example of a female being pedophile, therefore being attracted to entirely different type of male, the topic is disproven.
And since you did not show us any proof of what every heterosexual woman in the world is attracted to, but just what 80% on dating apps are attracted to, the resolution is unproved.
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:
This is a difficult burden for Pro, since Con only needs a single counterexample to disprove the topic. A lot of Pro's round is spent elaborating on their position rather than defending it. Con gives pedophiles as a counterexample, and even if I buy what Pro is telling me about parallels between "younger Chads" and "older Chads," they are too different to be the same group. As Con brings up, female pedophiles are not attracted to the tallest (or dominant, probably) of all males available, while other women are attracted to the tallest males available.
Even if Pro wants me to group "younger Chads" and "older Chads" together, they make their case difficult by making "tall" a criterion for a Chad (even if it's not the most important criterion.)
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:
In short: "All of your arguments are unproven assumptions."
Pro builds a case of incel propaganda (at least it wasn't copy/pasted)
IF true,
THEN sources are easy to find.
Sources would have undermined con, making his kritik weightless.
Con on the other hand kritiks it with an alternative sexuality; and rather than pointing out that it's not really hetero, pro asserts that they go for those little boys because they're so Chad. Which con wisely uses to mock that said chads are "short and weak," which pro flounders at, and somehow doubles down on his off topic rape isn't rape claims.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
While the off topic rape claims were somewhat distracting from the topic, a moderator is held to a higher standard.
**************************************************
Barney
03.06.2024 11:09AM
Reason:
In short: "All of your arguments are unproven assumptions."
Pro builds a case of incel propaganda (at least it wasn't copy/pasted)
IF true,
THEN sources are easy to find.
Sources would have undermined con, making his kritik weightless.
Con on the other hand kritiks it with an alternative sexuality; and rather than pointing out that it's not really hetero, pro asserts that they go for those little boys because they're so Chad. Which con wisely uses to mock that said chads are "short and weak," which pro flounders at, and somehow doubles down on his off topic rape isn't rape claims.
---
Conduct for overwhelming vileness against half the population of the planet. This was an example of "outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate."
Fair enough.
I report your vote for the conduct point. You have punished conduct that is not a conduct violation and you didn't quote references to back it up.
Thanks for voting.
I am rather sure this was a troll debate.
I dont think he seriously thinks all females, old and young, even decent and those who have moral standards, all walk around hoping that chads will rape them.
Watch American History X, and apply the lessons to your situation.
Has misogyny improved your life at all?
Thanks. I was told I dont put much effort into arguments lately, so I put some effort this time.
This was unironically a brutally efficient rebuttal. I am impressed.