For clarification, the comments of this debate will not be considered.
At present, the instigator has forfeited the first round, failing to fulfill their Burden of Proof.
However, I will state my case for my stance to not foolishly throw away my first round, as my opponent has conveniently done.
DEFINITION:
- Dominant = more important, strong, or noticeable than anything else of the same type
- Source: Cambridge dictionary
PREMISES 1 - DATING:
- Women are not "more important, strong or noticeable" than men in the dating world.
- To say otherwise is not only misandry, it's morally bankrupt.
Further,
- The dating world as a whole is diverse.
- There may be humans with more dominant personalities , there may be others who aren't as dominant in personality.
- To assign a personal trait to an entire gender is not just stereotyping, it's hate cloaked as an intellectual observation.
PREMISES 2 - HARM:
- Relationships aren't one-sided dictatorships, they're intimate partnerships.
- To focus on dominating your partner is the root of an unhealthy relationship.
- "According to UC Berkeley psychologist Dacher Keltner, having power makes people more likely to behave in sociopathic ways, putting the human drive for reward above the intimacy and connection we have with our partners."
- These along with several other reliable articles of research rebuke the concept of dominance within a relationship.
COMMON REBUTTAL: Women set higher standards
- While this is conventional, there's not enough research done to confirm this.
- Additionally, standards are subjective.
- Again, one cannot form a concrete argument by stereotyping, let alone assigning a personal trait to an entire gender.
Further,
- Hypothetically, if women have higher standards for men - that's preference, not dominance.
COMMON REBUTTAL: There's more men on dating apps
- More men on a dating app ≠ More female dominance
- Even if there are more men active on dating platforms, men taking more initiative does not make women universally more dominant in the dating world.
CONCLUSION:
- One-sided domination in the dating world is undeniably dangerous.
- Research shows that it not only affects the victim, but negatively warps the behavior of the aggressor.
- Additionally, the common rebuttals addressed collapse under the weight of scrutiny, no matter how much the rebuttal may be polished.
- You could throw a wood chip on soil and call it a woodruff, it's still not a flower.
its not this dead kid.
"no need to get your panties wet and go all try hard."
It's not going "try hard", or 'getting my panties wet', as you like to call it.
It's putting up a well thought out and coherent argument.
"Since I already did the debate"
I asked you personally if you'd want to do this cause ur last opponent made full forfeiture, you did not already debate this.
"Since I already did the debate I was trying to give you the opportunity to go first since I already read up on this subject"
You never asked me if I want to go first, so this could effectively be dismissed.
I couldn't care less how much you "read up on the subject". - if you're really that educated on the topic, you shouldn't have a hard time crafting a rebuttal.
"since you want to be disrespectful and rude I will not participate in this debate."
There were no ad hominem attacks.
If you want to make full forfeiture, just say it.
Stop making pathetic excuses as to why you cannot oppose my argument.
Dude the debate for me is for fun due to the fact you asked me personally to do this and i have already done this no need to get your panties wet and go all try hard. Since I already did the debate I was trying to give you the opportunity to go first since I already read up on this subject but since you want to be disrespectful and rude I will not participate in this debate.
Skip your last agruement