"You're also beginning to strawman, with saying I must believe the leaderboard is "immoral." I've previously said there's nothing wrong with people debating and wanting to win it. Its just not ideal to debate solely for elo and ego boosts."
There is no strawman.
There is no anything.
Your case IS the strawman.
Motives to get high on debates leaderboard and stay there:
1) Ego boost based on ratings boost
2) um.... none.
3) Be RM and stop caring that much while still smirking when you rise, to yourself as it's a nice motive.
The reason and mentality with which you debate to win:
1) To win at the expense of open and genuine debating for truth's sake when the two collide (or entirely so if devil's advocate).
2) Truth at the expense of winning when and if the two collide.
if you try harder only in good faith, you're fighting with one arm tied behind your back or alternatively refusing to tie the other's arm behind their back.
One side in a debate always HAS TO play dirtier to win than the other, it is of course often the wrong side but sometimes it is the correct side that is unpopular which has no choice but to use distraction and other techniques. If that side is told it isn't allowed to use techniques such as Kritiks, semantic nitpicking, goalpost movement etc, it cannot possibly win against a competent player on the other side.
I will explain once the debate is over, others on this website don't care about competition being sacred. The best debater should win and that means from the moment of acceptance 0 help from others unless there's a known coaching going on, so that each can tactically do debates in ways they hope the opposition's style will struggle against.
I know that unless you are the sharer type, it is insane to a man to imagine women genuinely can be fulfilled in polygamy.
As you said elsewhere they overall have higher capacity for bisexuality satisfaction and they experience insecurity and want to know the man likes them (but nor necessarily the best) whereas there are barely any men, beta cuck or not, that do not want their partner to tell them nobody compares to them in the way that she loves and admires them.
Women compete to get what they want, that is where they stop, whereas men compete to destroy competition and keep what they want as theirs. Men are not really ever wired for being sexually singular, they settle into it and women, unless modern hyperfeminists and/or pure lesbians, adore when their man or even another woman's man asserts himself to an intruder and says back off. It turns them on at times but definitely makes their hearts warm. It is because women do not perceive masculinity as inherently aggressive if they are in touch with their femininity, they find it entertaining and passionate, like the men are putting on a grand show that they enjoy watching and perhaps being a feminine part of.
Monogamy is all about force. Polygamic societies never will or have make monogamy ruled out, only the inverse is true, think.
Yes, they are built to protect and provide for the women, genius. That is the fundamental gender role, meaning men were built for women and not the inverse.
In case you are confused at my Round 1 closer, barely any Sikhs are Tamil and barely any Tamils are Sikh (it's not about a minority situation in population, it's genuine minority).
Tamils are majority Hindu, with some Muslim tamils and some Christians Tamils on the side. Pro's native language on profile is Tamil and religion is Sikh.
Men drove what ended up being the common traits in humans because they're stronger, often utilised rape but even consensually they called the shots of when and how often the women they had fucked them (polygamy was very normal back in the day, even polyamory for the woman wasn't as taboo but definitely a high quality man having several women was a norm even before Islam normalised it).
Women enjoy high quality men to a degree that few men enjoy high quality women, this is because womanhood is not built around what men desire or admire, whereas manhood is built entirely around what women desire and respect.
To make this clearer to you, there is a reason why with men generally speaking 'bigger and manlier' is more desirable for women.
The reason is that the 'more' a man is what he is, the generally more aroused and satisfied as woman will be at least in his short-term presence.
Women, however, are not clearly built to please men at all. 'More' of a woman is only pleasing to some, and when a woman is too womanly she's just a straight up ditzy and emotionally manipulative bimbo whereas a man that's severely masculine is stoic, reliable and keeps the woman respecting him by how he carries himself in the face of her manipulation and emotional swings.
You don't understand women maybe if you think that they're built to please men, the total opposite is true and it's your ego talking and bitterness at this fact.
There's a reason men have nipples and why a man undergoes more shifts from his boy form than a woman does from her girl form. Men are the later edition, the sex that evolved as things went one, women were the more baselines, default and core one.
"When is the first stage that an organism can have sexes? Was it a male or a female? Answering this question from a biological speculative angle could solve this discussion."
100% female.
Males can't reproduce life alone in any viable way, hermaphrodite species are primarily female, not male, in their body's functionality, otherwise they'd be unable to produce and nurture the offspring.
Women enjoy nurturing men but they also don't mind crushing lame or 'creepy' men. They're role is less centred around men whereas men's role is more centred around women on a biological level.
The vagina's design is to host and eject a baby, the penis' design is to please and enter a vagina. Men were built around women, not the other way at all. Men have nipples, do you know why that is?
The total opposite of this is true. Men were made to protect and entertain women, think hard about it, men can't make men but if biology were tweaked, women could make women. Men are the additional sex/gender, not women.
Hahahahaha, dirty voting saves the so-called pinnacle of voting moderation.
How can flrw still vote? All his votes are bad reasoning.
Who cares, this is the nature of the game.
That is a hardcore Round 1. Remember that sources get voted on.
That's why I didn't accept plus it's kind of a coin toss even on the real topic.
what does mr eyeroller even mean?
I didn't even say there's good guys on both sides lol, I said you being sick is irrelevant.
to be fair, there's certain sexualities/orientations that make many people sick (too taboo to be naming rn).
Homosexuality does make some people sick, so if feeling bad for making someone sick is the way people should operate, there's hypocrisy on your side.
This topic makes me roll my eyes more than feel sick, it's stupid and pointless since homosexuality can be done healthily with consenting parties.
Donold tump
merit like daddy's inheritance.
oh man i forgot this debate.................................................... fuck
Mall actually played it clever. So clever actually.
Mall has never posted a single source in his entire time debating, I believe.
You have a point, there is a major skill gap and I am happy to push myself into a murkier topic.
Wylted voted at a point where I didn't look to think to report, please handle it.
Of course, God did make lilith first, never forget.
God is Satan, you already know my theory.
That said I don't believe in that god.
Um... please vote and handle the nonsense vote.
The semantics favour your side.
This entire debate is semantical
That is totally vague :) like does an imagined fantasy exist as a fantasy? If yes, Pro is tautologically correct.
pls vote ty
"You're also beginning to strawman, with saying I must believe the leaderboard is "immoral." I've previously said there's nothing wrong with people debating and wanting to win it. Its just not ideal to debate solely for elo and ego boosts."
There is no strawman.
There is no anything.
Your case IS the strawman.
Motives to get high on debates leaderboard and stay there:
1) Ego boost based on ratings boost
2) um.... none.
3) Be RM and stop caring that much while still smirking when you rise, to yourself as it's a nice motive.
The reason and mentality with which you debate to win:
1) To win at the expense of open and genuine debating for truth's sake when the two collide (or entirely so if devil's advocate).
2) Truth at the expense of winning when and if the two collide.
Pick.
I have no idea what you're even talking about now.
Are you one of those cringey types who can't ever take devil's advocate or thinks it's immoral to have the leaderboard in the first place?
Stick to the forums if you only want that, like why even have this as a 1v1 if it's just about exploring truth?
if you try harder only in good faith, you're fighting with one arm tied behind your back or alternatively refusing to tie the other's arm behind their back.
One side in a debate always HAS TO play dirtier to win than the other, it is of course often the wrong side but sometimes it is the correct side that is unpopular which has no choice but to use distraction and other techniques. If that side is told it isn't allowed to use techniques such as Kritiks, semantic nitpicking, goalpost movement etc, it cannot possibly win against a competent player on the other side.
Then don't make it rated.
It's like going to a rated/pro tennis match and saying you only wanted to focus on trick shot flexing rather than point attainment.
sophistry doesn't mean being vague it means twisting meanings and angles around so it appears all things support your case.
this is just tautological and lexical gymnastics with what 'exists' means.
I will explain once the debate is over, others on this website don't care about competition being sacred. The best debater should win and that means from the moment of acceptance 0 help from others unless there's a known coaching going on, so that each can tactically do debates in ways they hope the opposition's style will struggle against.
I think you are the one resorting to sophistry there and that Con has no choice but to do the same which is why that rule is stupid in this debate.
It's pretty tautologous if people admit ideas in any way exist.
Considering that you will use sophistry to win this, I find what you ask of Con a bit ridiculous, this is entirely semantical and tautological.
Please define the word 'impede' for the description to actually matter with its definition.
I know that unless you are the sharer type, it is insane to a man to imagine women genuinely can be fulfilled in polygamy.
As you said elsewhere they overall have higher capacity for bisexuality satisfaction and they experience insecurity and want to know the man likes them (but nor necessarily the best) whereas there are barely any men, beta cuck or not, that do not want their partner to tell them nobody compares to them in the way that she loves and admires them.
Women compete to get what they want, that is where they stop, whereas men compete to destroy competition and keep what they want as theirs. Men are not really ever wired for being sexually singular, they settle into it and women, unless modern hyperfeminists and/or pure lesbians, adore when their man or even another woman's man asserts himself to an intruder and says back off. It turns them on at times but definitely makes their hearts warm. It is because women do not perceive masculinity as inherently aggressive if they are in touch with their femininity, they find it entertaining and passionate, like the men are putting on a grand show that they enjoy watching and perhaps being a feminine part of.
Monogamy is all about force. Polygamic societies never will or have make monogamy ruled out, only the inverse is true, think.
Yes, they are built to protect and provide for the women, genius. That is the fundamental gender role, meaning men were built for women and not the inverse.
make it rated, wtf is that coward stuff?
It isnt racist, I know what south asian parents do but it was an exaggeration they beat the teeth out of ones mouth.
You do nit know what racism is if you call ethnic observations racist.
Make it young adult men and I will accept.
xD! Enjoy vsing Mall, I genuinely don't know who will annoy who more.
I see the irony in the character count and rule for Con.
I see what you did.
If you debate in the comments section, I will also. You forgot that clause.
Overall no if you mean agreeing with the whole vote.
I agree with why whiteflame voted against me when I was vs benjamin and that is about it.
In case you are confused at my Round 1 closer, barely any Sikhs are Tamil and barely any Tamils are Sikh (it's not about a minority situation in population, it's genuine minority).
Tamils are majority Hindu, with some Muslim tamils and some Christians Tamils on the side. Pro's native language on profile is Tamil and religion is Sikh.
Thanks for your vote, I agree that my Round 2 was my best but we disagree on Round 1 quite a lot, that said thanks.
Rap's done vote as you please.
Prefer if you give 7 points to who you think wins, regardless as this is meant to be a winner selection debate but whatever.
Rap's done vote as you please.
I wouldnt be surprised if you voted against me despite me clearly outrapping him.
It is what it is.
When tribes go to war, who dies and takes the cuts and hits in order to stop the other dying?
Men.
Men are more disposable because of not only the childrearing ability but because their core ROLE was to protect and sacrifice.
Men drove what ended up being the common traits in humans because they're stronger, often utilised rape but even consensually they called the shots of when and how often the women they had fucked them (polygamy was very normal back in the day, even polyamory for the woman wasn't as taboo but definitely a high quality man having several women was a norm even before Islam normalised it).
Women enjoy high quality men to a degree that few men enjoy high quality women, this is because womanhood is not built around what men desire or admire, whereas manhood is built entirely around what women desire and respect.
To make this clearer to you, there is a reason why with men generally speaking 'bigger and manlier' is more desirable for women.
The reason is that the 'more' a man is what he is, the generally more aroused and satisfied as woman will be at least in his short-term presence.
Women, however, are not clearly built to please men at all. 'More' of a woman is only pleasing to some, and when a woman is too womanly she's just a straight up ditzy and emotionally manipulative bimbo whereas a man that's severely masculine is stoic, reliable and keeps the woman respecting him by how he carries himself in the face of her manipulation and emotional swings.
You don't understand women maybe if you think that they're built to please men, the total opposite is true and it's your ego talking and bitterness at this fact.
There's a reason men have nipples and why a man undergoes more shifts from his boy form than a woman does from her girl form. Men are the later edition, the sex that evolved as things went one, women were the more baselines, default and core one.
"When is the first stage that an organism can have sexes? Was it a male or a female? Answering this question from a biological speculative angle could solve this discussion."
100% female.
Males can't reproduce life alone in any viable way, hermaphrodite species are primarily female, not male, in their body's functionality, otherwise they'd be unable to produce and nurture the offspring.
Surprisingly, I couldn't give a fuck.
No. The vagina is designed first as the womb for the baby. It has a blatant exit design, not entry, it is not that different to the ass.
The penis is designed around entering the vagina. You didn't even reply to a single thing I said at all.
I think this will be related to decomposition and eating things.
Women enjoy nurturing men but they also don't mind crushing lame or 'creepy' men. They're role is less centred around men whereas men's role is more centred around women on a biological level.
The vagina's design is to host and eject a baby, the penis' design is to please and enter a vagina. Men were built around women, not the other way at all. Men have nipples, do you know why that is?
The total opposite of this is true. Men were made to protect and entertain women, think hard about it, men can't make men but if biology were tweaked, women could make women. Men are the additional sex/gender, not women.