Instigator / Pro
21
1504
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#644

Women Love Men Who are Generally Attractive more than Specifically Attractive

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
6
Better sources
8
4
Better legibility
4
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 4 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Human
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
8,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
16
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Description

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.

-->
@Speedrace
@Alanwang123

(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).

-->
@Alanwang123

(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.

-->
@Speedrace
@Alanwang123

(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.

-->
@Speedrace

*******************************************************************
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

*******************************************************************

-->
@Alanwang123

*******************************************************************
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.

-->
@Human

I suggest correcting your own grammar before you correct your opponent's.

-->
@Alanwang123

You might want to expand on your reasons for the voting decision a little bit

-->
@David

Cheers for the feedback, I'll be more specific when voting sources the next time.

-->
@PsychometricBrain

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].

-->
@PsychometricBrain

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”…]

-->
@PsychometricBrain

*******************************************************************
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

-->
@ViennaSausage

*******************************************************************
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
*******************************************************************

-->
@Human

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.

-->
@Ramshutu

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

-->
@Ramshutu

*Golf Claps*

-->
@PsychometricBrain
@Human

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.

-->
@ViennaSausage

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.

-->
@ViennaSausage

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*

-->
@PsychometricBrain

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.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

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.

-->
@PsychometricBrain

I have no problems with your vote.

I just found it odd that you reject rhetorical devices as good evidence.

Rhetorical devices not just a tool to lead people down a path. It's also a tool to cover a bunch of possibilities at once without having to waste a whole round interrogating my opponent. I'm doing my opponent a favor with that rhetoric. Because odds are I covered the point that he/she wanted to cover and now they have something to respond to.. That's why I think it's a good tool in any debate setting. Honestly, I'm not sure how adding the "academic" descriptor really does anything. Seems like an arbitrary, vacuous and counterproductive measure. There is no unified standard for logic or debate style. We use the method that works for us.

You might be right that I might not get as many people if I don't stick to the norm. But I'm here for truth first and votes second. I don't care if my arguments are convincing. I care if they're true. That way when somebody does get their mind changed by me, I can rest easy knowing that I changed their mind with the truth and didn't lead them down a path to false enlightenment.

Fair compromise?

Because by repeatedly relying on rhetorical questions you force the readers to come to conclusions. This is a good way of convincing people of a view that they have not considered before hand by forcing them to actively engage with your premises. However, in a formal debate it is your job to elaborate on points made and point to how they contradict your opponent, using rhetorical questions in an academic context is rather lazy and I can not award points for implications that I had to deduce by myself in the same way that I can not award points for arguments that support a certain position but were not made in the actual debate.

-->
@PsychometricBrain

It wasn't personal. That's just the mood I use when I talk sometimes.

May I ask what you have against rhetorical devices?

Specifically, rhetorical questions?

They're good enough for philosophers, why not for you?

I'm asking in earnest.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Glad to have read the debate although I was somewhat disappointed by your debating technique. I'd cut back on the rhetorical questions, add some sources and definitely avoid making the debate personal. You could have had a better shot (in my opinion) by citing the literature of evolutionary psychologist Stephen Jay Gould instead of relying on ad lib arguments.

-->
@PsychometricBrain

I can't speak to what the voters decided. But I personally tend not to cite sources unless I need hard mathematical data.

In my worldview, I find sources containing rhetoric to be appeals to authority.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against rhetoric.

But if I'm going to hear somebody's opinion, I'd rather hear the opinion of my opponent rather than my opponent giving me somebody else's opinion. I don't care if my opponent's use sources but I generally don't.

I gladly accept the source point deduction if it means I get to argue in the way that I find most truthful.

I'm here to change minds and votes are just a bonus because that means that I did a good job at changing minds.

Once again, I appreciate the vote.

I believe the more voters, the better.

-->
@Human

Evolutionary biology and psychology have always been controversial, it has often been pointed out on DART that the easiest way to win a debate is to pick a resolution that most people agree with as you've pretty much got the argument points in your pocket from the start.

-->
@PsychometricBrain

Thanks for the vote. Sorry my style doesn't appeal to your pallet. Can't win them all. I suppose I should apply a holistic strategy ;)

-->
@Ramshutu

I'm perplexed by the fact that you awarded sources to both debaters even though Pro cited mostly peer-reviewed scientific literature, while Con did not cite a single source even after Pro pointed this out and requested a source for Con's assertion in round 3. Could you explain how you determined how to award the sources point in this debate?

I can see counter-arguments for S&G, few for conduct and possibly some for arguments but sources clearly has to go to Pro.

Any coincidence that the actual votes and vote bombs were both for Con? Even though con mentioned no sources, made no arguments for his BoP, and deliberately derailed the debate into very strange areas including trying to weasel out of the BoP in the 3rd round.

I have never been more confused by people's votes in my entire life lol.

I guess that's the problem with these sites. They don't have the resources to get impartial judges, or at least judges who have the time to read through a long debate.

I was thinking about a solution for this: perhaps for each debate, both sides put in something like $2 or more. Part of that goes toward judges and part toward site maintenance.

Thoughts?

-->
@Melcharaz

Good enough. Thanks!

Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules Specifically in this case the argument is sufficient, though the conduct point is not. In order to award conduct point, the voter must:

fine, ill award conduct to both.

-->
@Melcharaz

The Pro has shown (Mostly through smell) the science of physical attraction to the body and phermones, however the burden of proof to prove attraction would also invoke emotions and other concepts into the fray, his own sources do not cover the entirety of his debate, nor did he prove that those who are autistic have less attraction than those who do not. however con provided no sources either so i am giving that to both. I'm taking away conduct because of the insistence of Pro's burden of proof and appealing to voters.

Pro's point is that through understanding physical attraction we can conclude that specialization in activity is often to the downfall of those who seek to be attracted to.

Con points out the subtility of attraction is often not as varied or as exclusive as Pro concludes

Pro's point is that through the shown methods that there is MORE attraction, however there is no proof given that all these factors conclude to more attraction other than his link regarding odor and how wealth increases attraction.
Con affirms holistic strategy is not conclusive form for appealing to attraction.

In general I agree the burden of proof is not shared in this debate, despite set up and appeal by pro. I would suggest there be more evidence to conclude dating strategy and to investigate emotional attraction by pro.

-->
@Melcharaz

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct

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 Specifically in this case the argument is sufficient, though the conduct point is not. In order to award conduct point, the voter must:

(a) Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
(b) 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
(c) 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).

*******************************************************************

-->
@killshot

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: killshot // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 7 points to con

RFD: It was over in the first round.

Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules

*******************************************************************

Cons whole rebuttal round points out the individual and specific complexity of attraction. Con points out that just pointing a list of things that woman find attractive doesn’t mean a woman would someone above average in all more attractive than someone exceptional in one - basically pointing out the situation is too complex to be boiled down.

Summary. I felt pro lost site of the specifics, and was mostly trying to argue that as women are attracted to multiple individual traits that more individuals traits Being good Are better than 1 big one.

The evolution argument was interesting but didn’t pass muster - as pro did not establish more than a theoretical relationship. If there was a caveat in the resolution to this effect, I may have reviewed this differently.

Con - on the other hand sufficiently muddied the water on this point, and detailed the complexity and the lacking justification in order to win. Enough doubt was introduced here to erode the burden of proof even in spite of the lack of overall warrant. At best this could be a tie.

Conduct: so, the BoP was on pro as clearly stated in the agreed description. I can’t accept R1 changes - as I didn’t even notice them Despite reading through multiple times, pro bickered about the BoP not being on him, and argues that I must hit him with a Conduct penalty for arguing pro has burden of proof when pro clearly states this was not the case in the description. I don’t view cons violation egregious - and he made up for it by waiving his round.

At this point I did come close to hitting con with a violation, but I feel the arguments points is sufficient - and It’s hard to judge whether the change was intentional. But it was tough.

All other points tied.

However, what I feel pro fails to do - is just the resolution as he defined, that it’s better to be all round good, than good at one specific thing. Pro doesn’t offer a justification that being a bit better in multiple examples on the list is more important that being much better in others.

Pro gives examples of athletes being exceptional AND above average (so matching both paradigm). But also mentions autistic savants, who are exceptional and below average (so failing to be relevant as per what I need to award a win.)

Cons rebuttal, is threefold that there are too many variables to track - that to not possible to say for shore:

Specifically con points out it’s hard to measure attractiveness and the impacts of each specific area, that pro cannot read minds to get more objective data, and sometimes it’s not always clear what women’s preferences always are (you don’t know what you don’t know).

I tend to agree with con on these grounds to be honest.

So: pro successfully refutes one part of cons argument: that you can’t tell. The scientific data pro provided I’m going to accept on its face, as he mounts a reasonable response to why his data should be accepted.

Throughout this round, what pro does is argue that his data is accurate and valid. The other relevant prong is that pro argues that the evolutionary interpretation would appear to indicate a broad strategy maybe best - but I don’t feel pro justifies why the theoretical examples apply to the real world - that requires data.

My main issue with pros argument - is that his main points in the opening round remain that women are attracted to individual traits - but pro offers no real argument to justify the impact of being much better at one thing - average in the rest vs a little above average.

As con made opening arguments, but skipped a round - I won’t view this as a violation (though pro should note that you don’t necessarily need acceptance here unlike DDO).

I will also point out pro states BoP is on him in the description - so I will view it as such as this is the description that con agrees to in the debate - and neither side argue that the description is invalid. I will view cons first round as his first reply in this RFD.

Pro is arguing that women are attracted by men who are all rounded, rather than specialized. I found the title a bit confusing, as it kinda changed in the description.

My main issue, is what constitutes the “good at one thing”. It’s not defined, and as human are normally a collection of traits it could be argued that to some degree each are measured on their all round holistic ability.

Because of this, it’s hard for me to pick what a win would look like. Pros autism savant point - is it the success that is not important, or empathy and social interaction - the collection - that is an issue. If that is the case, I feel that this would render this debate unwinnable by con.

Instead I have to take the position that pro must argue that being exceptional in one way and average in others is less attractive than being a bit above average in multiple aspects.

The first main argument he makes is evolutionary. While I think it would make sense from an evolutionarily stand point - I do not feel that this is sufficient - the reason is that pro doesn’t give me a reason to believe that because it makes sense in the context of evolution that this is what is happening in the real world - pro did not provide warrant for that connection.

Pro lists a number of attraction factors and provides some level of justification that woman are attracted based on these features.

meant that burden of proof is not EQUAL. not shared.