Women Love Men Who are Generally Attractive more than Specifically Attractive
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 4 votes and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- People
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 8,000
- Required rating
- 1
Resolution:
Women are more attracted to men who have adopted a holistic dating strategy than men who are excellent at one specific thing.
Rules:
(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.
(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate
(3) Structure the debate in a readable, Coherent fashion.
(4) No semantics, Trolling, or lawyering. Keep the focus on argumentation not tricks.
Rounds:
(1) Acceptance
(2) Main Argument
(3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument. No new arguments.
(4) Evaluation of main arguments and rebuttals + voting issues (one paragraph). No new arguments.
Definitions:
Holistic - focused on the sum total of the person; including physical, Mental, Emotional and other characteristics of the individual and his life
Burden of Proof:
I have the burden of proof.
By accepting this debate you accept the Rules, Rounds, Definitions, And BOP.
“Choosing a mate is a complex task, and so we do not expect to find simple answers to what women want.” -David Buss, Evolutionary Psychology, 2012
- AP1 - Selecting a mate able to invest. EMP - ambitiousness and industriousness, financial prospects, social status, older age; size, strength, and athletic ability
- AP2 - Selecting a mate who is willing to invest. EMP - Dependability and stability, love and commitment cues, positive interactions with children
- AP3 - Selecting a mate who is able to physically protect her and her children. EMP - Size (muscularity and height), bravery, athletic ability.
- AP4 - Selecting a mate who will show good parenting skills. EMP - Dependability, emotional stability, kindness, positive interactions with children
- AP5 - Selecting a mate who is compatible. EMP - similar values, similar ages, similar personalities
- AP6 - Selecting a mate who is healthy. EMP - Physical attractiveness, symmetry, health, masculinity, good immune system
Why women have sex is complex and multifaceted, containing varying combinations of motivations. We identified 237 distinct sexual motivations that covered an astonishing variety of psychological nuance. (Cindy Meston, David Buss, 2009)
Smell: A man’s smell is a sign of his immune functioning from his MHC gene. The more different the MHC gene, the more a woman’s sexual responsiveness to her partner increased. (Santos, 2005) Women are a lot more sensitive to bad odors than men [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693767/]
1. Sense of Humor
- Autistic Savants are people who have significant mental disabilities but demonstrate an extraordinary, specific ability: e.g. rapid calculation, artistic ability, map making, or musical ability. Usually just one special skill is present.
- Are they attractive to women? No. Many autistic characteristics go against typical dating norms, running counter to mainstream conceptions of how to express affection and love. People with autism are rarely considered in romantic contexts.
- Basic, non-sexual touching is uncomfortable. Big smiles can be frightening and eye contact that darts back and forth often makes other people uncomfortable. Autistic people don't understand flirting and it seems complex and nonsensical. They have difficulty in processing social cues from others as well.
- Yes, these are examples of men who have an extraordinary ability in one field and yes, they are attractive to women, but notice how they are also attractive in general. At a high level these people all have high industriousness, social acuity in making deals to improve their careers, and usually sought after by women creating more competition for them.
- Athlete: good physical fitness and health, strength for protecting her and offspring, industriousness and financial prospects for providing resources, higher testosterone produces a lower voice which is more sexually arousing, good body. He fulfills many if not all EMP’s of women.
- Actor: Excellent grooming, hygiene, appearance, facial symmetry. High social status and ability to socialize and empathize. Wealth, lifestyle of freedom and good emotions. He fulfills many if not all EMP’s of women.
- Musicians: Intelligence, motor skills for playing instruments, fame (social status), wealth, pre-selection being surrounded by women, often good looking and physically fit. He fulfills many if not all EMP’s of women.
- These people who are excellent at one thing are also generally attractive as well and set up their lives to maximize the women in them.
The nature of your claim is ultimately subjective. When you make a statement about what woman prefer , you invoke a lot of different woman with a lot of different opinions.
- I may make a statement (assertion) about what women prefer, but it is substantiated by the best scientific evidence and evolutionary models that exist. As seen in my argument, I make reference to many studies, several evolutionary models, book reviews of 1000's of studies, and quotes from the most reputable evolutionary psychologists on the planet [note that is not a fallacious argument from authority, because the evolutionary psychologists are in consensus with these points and this is their area of expertise].
- In studies that poll women's opinions and experiences, they are valid scientific polls published in reputable scientific journals. A valid opinion poll requires a random sample of population, a statistically significant number for the sample size, and non-bias questioning so that the answer of the question is truthful and valid. For certain types of scientific questions where techniques and instruments are not currently able to detect things significantly, scientifically valid polls are some of the best evidence we have.
- For many studies on female arousal a technique called "Vaginal photoplethysmography" is used to measure the amount of blood in the walls of the vagina with light. So that can go an objective level beyond self-reporting or other forms of observation, which is the most accurate you can get with testing of arousal and attraction.
- As indicated in round 1, we have a shared burden of proof. I must show why women are more attracted to men who are more holistically attractive (in mind, body, personality, and materially) and con must show why women are more attracted to men who are hyperattractive in one specialized area. So any claims as to subjectivity (if that is one of his main points) apply equally to him as well.
However, there problems.
1. You're not a mind reader.This is actually the key issue. You can't know what every woman wants. If you can't know what every woman wants, Then there is no way to extrapolate any kind of true data. We would just end up with subjective guesses about subjective feelings that we have no real data on.
2. Tracking approaches.The mind reader problem applies here was well.
We can't read the mind of all men and know what dating approach they're using.
Furthermore, the topic is not a true dichotomy because it does not include cases of hybrids who use two or three approaches, but no holistic ones. That means there are multiple categories that you need to debunk that puts the burden of proof on your, because I don't have to claim a single approach. I only have to prove that your way doesn't enjoy a majority or other approaches.
3. People don't always know.Woman don't always know what they like until they get it.
In fact, many woman simply fall for guys just on looks and then just tolerate their personality, so how does your holistic approach apply here?
Men also don't always know what approach they're using. They might just be spit balling.
Summary:There are simply too many variables to track.
- For example, a study that tested the smell of a men's shirts after working out and how attractive women found the men based on their shirt smell. They found that women were more attracted to the men who produced more androstenol which is a chemical associated with higher testosterone in men.
- Or in the voice study, women listened to over a hundred different voices and rated the lower-pitched voices more attractive universally.
whenever subjectivity is involved, it's almost always impossible to get good proof.
I'm going to start off by point out that there is no shared BoP in this debate...
I will note that nothing here specifically supports your claim that men have to adopt a holistic strategy.
[Questioning Science]
The judgements that woman make about a man's traits are largely arbitrary
- For example in the study on wealth's influence on attractiveness, 150 women rated mens attractiveness based on a photo and his salary. "A man can move himself two points higher on the attractiveness scale we used if his salary increases by a factor of 10." [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381730315X]
Most woman decide if they like a guy within several minutes of meeting him.
- Size, height, muscularity, facial symmetry, motor skills while walking.
- Bravery in approach, social status, humor, intelligence, social skills, dominance, assertiveness, comfortability in sexuality, empathy, self-confidence, deep voice.
- Leadership
- Material proof of having resources, kindness, assertiveness in way of ordering
- Biochemical sample of his immune system's compatibility with hers.
- Leadership, resourcefulness dealing with logistics, empathy dealing with her situation with friends/schedule.
- Empathy, social skills, level of testosterone
- Dominance, deep voice, assertiveness, leadership, movement (motor coordination), chemical cues, athleticism 😉
[Men would have to display all traits in 5 minutes]
Woman decide if they like you or not.
Are you married? My wife decided she liked me b/c of 3 factors.
I'm not sure why you bring autistic people into this. Is this your idea of a "specifically attractive person"?
When you bring up weaknesses. You put "bad smell" and "anger issues" This is another strawman because You're posing [your argument] against completely unattractive.
Why aren't we talking about people with neutral smells and neutral emotion issues?
I knew a guy in high school that smelled like rotten beef a roni (my words back then) and got more girls than I did.
(4) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
(3) The Spelling and Grammar point is not sufficient. In order to award spelling and grammar (S&G) points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible.
(1) The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
(2) The source point is not sufficient. In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Speedrace // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 2 points to pro for sources and 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: This was very interesting. Pro obviously gets sources. However, Con easily gets conduct. Pro specifically stated in the description that HE had the burden of proof, but then tries to shift it to being shared. That's dishonest debating. He also cusses twice in his rounds, and he inappropriately tries to correct Con's grammar (even though his isn't much better). Con was a little disrespectful in his last round, but Pro was much more so. As to the arguments, Pro definitely had good points and backed them up, but I feel that he didn't respond to Con's arguments very much. I would have given it to Con if he had used sources, but he ended up not doing so.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Alanwang123 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to pro
RFD: It just feels like the right thing to do.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
I'm very surprised that Pro thought he should get the conduct point.
I suggest correcting your own grammar before you correct your opponent's.
You might want to expand on your reasons for the voting decision a little bit
Cheers for the feedback, I'll be more specific when voting sources the next time.
Conduct: Pro (Con goes off-topic by passive-aggressively asking Con whether he is “happily married”, regularly asks rhetorical questions “right?”, “No evidence huh?”, “You mean Pseudoscience “ and is confrontational in general “Oh no. You're not dodging this one.”, “Oh, you're a dating coach. Well I guess you have a bias towards this topic then right?”, “Appealing to the voters. hmmm. Yeah I guess I would do that too if I had weak arguments.”. Finally he acknowledges his “harsh” debating style and Pro’s good conduct: “I know I was harsh, but that's my style. Good debate to my well conducted opponent.”)
I wrote more thorough reasons for my voting decision but since Con's rebuttal and final round were thoroughly disappointing, I don't feel like I've got anything good to say about them, loved Pro's opening round though. Feel free to ask about any further justification of points awarded. It is beyond my comprehension how the other voters awarded the points while neglecting Con's consistently toxic tone, incoherent arguments, abundance of unnecessary rhetorical questions to dismiss arguments rather than elaborating why he believes them to be flawed and ad hominem attacks rather than focus on the debate [alluding to Pro's job and marriage].
Arguments: Pro (Pro’s Evolutionary Model and Scientific Data model are both successful [supported by evidence such as citations and studies and provided with sufficient examples such as bad hygiene negatively affecting sexual market value and autistic savants being considered generally unattractive] and logically coherent [The conclusions follow from the premises] while Con’s first and second argument are contradicted by the scientific data cited in Pro’s second argument [i.e. Pro showed that there are methods of reliably determining mate preferences such as using "Vaginal photoplethysmography"] and his third argument is a non-sequitur which is later pointed out by Pro “A man's knowledge and awareness of what strategies he is using to attract a woman is irrelevant to how the women experience them and also irrelevant to the debate, because we are debating what women are attracted to and we are not debating whether or not the men are aware of the concentration of androstenol in their sweat, their social status, or the pitch of their voice.”)
Sources: Pro (Human cited scientific literature and academic books, Ralph neglected to cite a single source even after Pro pointed this out in round 3).
S&G: Pro (Human structured his text neatly, remained on topic and made no significant S&G errors, Ralph devoted a significant portion of the debate off-topic subjects [such as whether Pro is happily married, his own marriage and at least ten unnecessary rhetorical questions] , his second argument is hard to distinguish from his first [except for the added appeal to a shared BoP] and there were S&G errors that made reading difficult throughout the debate [e.g. “woman” was constantly used instead of “women”, sentence starters are regularly not capitalised which decreases the flow “furthermore”, “whenever”…]
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to pro
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) Sources are not sufficiently explained. In order to award source point, the voter must:
(a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
(b) Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
(c) Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
This vote does not do these three
Everything else seems fine IMO
******************************************************************
Better conduct
Con spent a considerable portion of the debate arguing about the rules and round structure of the debate he agreed to be in. For example round 4 was outlined to include a one paragraph voting issues section; in round 4 pro outlined his voting issues to which Con replied: “Appealing to the voters. hmmm. Yeah I guess I would do that too if I had weak arguments.” Not only is this unnecessarily obnoxious, but it’s just downright confusing. Why is he surprised by this if it is in the round structure? Con was aggressive throughout the debate, making rude comments such as the one above and things like “You mean pseudo science.” Con’s rounds were difficult to read due to the excessive rudeness.
1 point to pro
Arguments, sources, and conduct clearly go to pro. I could understand how other people would tie the spelling and grammar if their criteria is that the debate is still coherent enough to be understood. But for me, Pro’s use of quotations for rebuttals, clearly laid out initial argument, and proper spelling and grammar makes him deserve the point over Con. Feel free to ask me for more input if you want on any of these points.
Better arguments
Pro’s evolutionary argument that women look for traits of a man that solve several of her needs was persuasive and matched up with the current scientific evidence he presented. Instead of Con creating arguments for his position to meet his bop, he spent the entire debate in rebuttal mode even though the debate structure and rounds were clearly outlined in round 1. Pro pointed this out and oddly enough con still did not choose to make any arguments for his side. Con made a couple flailing attempts to undermine science itself, which was easily dismissed by Pro as not the focus of the debate. As another voter pointed out, Con used tons of rhetorical questions instead of making an effort to form an argument.
3 points to pro
Better sources
Pro cited over a dozen sources from studies, websites, and books. Con cited no sources in the debate sense. He used many personal anecdotes like the “rotten beef a roni” friend and his n=1 of his wife’s 2-3 reasons for being with him. 2 points to pro
Better spelling and grammar
Con made too many spelling and grammar errors to enumerate, but the most annoying one was when he frequently misspelled ‘women’ when referring to a single woman. Another example of weird grammar that made the debate harder to read: “Moving on. When you bring up weaknesses. There is a flaw in your plan.” Con’s writing seemed to be from phone dictation rather than typing. Pro laid things out in a readable way, especially when using the quotation feature for rebuttals and I couldn’t find any horrible misspellings or grammar issues. 1 point to Pro
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: ViennaSausage // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded:
RFD: See above
Reason for mod action: This voter is not permitted to vote on this debate
*******************************************************************
Please review the Code of Conduct, while the help Center is mostly correct: the specific rules for allocation according to the voting code of conduct is:
“In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
- Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
- A Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
-Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
-Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.”
The code of conduct elaborates the detail of source allocafion here, and my decision for not awarding them adheres strictly to the code of conduct voting regulations - specifically relating to the first, second and third bullet points.
You can find it here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
It is a bit confusing, but the resources on the main page is a little out of date, the code of conduct takes precidence.
That is incorrect according to the voting guide.
Quality of sources is the most important, which I had and used to substantiated my arguments and the support of my arguments against rebuttals.
When one side has no sources or too few, then quantity is reason for voting as well.
So in this case I won both in quality and quantity, which would warrant me the two points.
Direct quote from the voting guide:
“Sources. Sources should only be awarded because one side had better quality sources. Saying that one side had more sources is never going to be sufficient. If one side had so few sources that it constituted inadequate source support, then you can consider quantity. But normally, you need to show that one side had sources of superior quality.”
https://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/68208/
The link from DART to DDO is in the Resources and Helpful Links section here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346
*Golf Claps*
Sources are not awarded on quantity. If it was sheer volume of sources, or where the sources came from: pro would have won.
Unfortunately, I will not generally award sources when one side merely corroborates claims that are not particularly unreasonable; for me to get sources, you need to make one or more knock out points - that bolster your argument for the resolution which are then corroborated by a source in a way that reduces your opponents ability to argue against it.
I don’t either of those things were true here: if every factual claim you made are true, it wouldnt have proven the resolution, so no validation of that position helped you.
To be frank Mr. Sausage. I did not know there was a voting section outlined. I am not accustomed to seeing that in the outlines so I guess I intuitively overlooked it. My missteak.
lol. Oh dear you really said I typed my argument on a phone.
I don't know whether to take this as an insult to my spelling, or a compliment for being the worlds fastest texter.
Thanks for the vote.
More voters = good.
Lol, tough crowd.
Pro: *cites 15 sources from academic books and studies*
Con: *cites no sources*
Judges: "Yeah, that's a tie on sources"
*Curb Your Enthusiasm track plays*
To say it's universal is to say that every woman on earth has that attraction, so I wouldn't agree.
I would go as far as to say it could be a societal or evolutionary trend. there's too many different flavors to have a universal. Every flavor has a congruent flavor that can proxy for it with other people.
My real problem with the topic argument is that it makes a broad statement without considering situational factors.
I actually admitted in the debate that some of his statements were true, I'm not a monster, lol.
The comment about him being a debating coach might seem like conduct. But I was making a true statement in my opinion and it was relevant.
He was claiming a system was needed, and I rightfully pointed out that a dating coach would have a natural disposition to thinking that a strategy is necessary because they want to be prepared for their job. I also said that his plan COULD work, but not long term and I showed an example of what would happen if someone tried to become a player as their goal and how it would backfire. See. I don't just use rhetoric. I use analogies and examples. I'm just saying all of this because you asked my opinion on the subject and I'm verbose.
Fair play to you.
Just out of interest. Do you not think that women have universal mate preferences?
For example, it is is quite obvious that there are universal taste preferences (people generally prefer sweet & savoury foods over bitter food). In the same way it seems obvious to me that women tend to prefer wealthy, athletic, caring, etc. individuals and that the more of these traits a man posseses (i.e. the more holistic), the better his chances should be.