We should go to the park together

Thanks, Pro. My opponent notes that because I do not have my relationship status listed on my profile, it is an indication that my marriage not monogamous. Of course, this does not take into consideration the fact that I have also chosen not to share my profession, age, ethnicity or income. Thus it is more reasonable to presume that I have simply chosen not to share information about myself, rather than make assumptions about the status or nature of each answer - for most of Pro's hypothesis are neither true nor verifiable. Take for instance the fact that Pro has repeatedly referred to my husband, even though he may be wrong and I might have a wife. More about that later. His entire analysis regarding the morality of my actions (in hanging out with Pro) assume my partner's views or secular beliefs influence my decisions. While that may or may not be true, the decisions or views would still be mine, and thus are legitimately good reasons to not act against my desires or well-being. Furthermore, even if sexual activity was promoted by biology, it would not necessarily change the moral status of adultery. Rape is also driven by biological impulse, yet it requires force which is why it is illegal and immoral. Similarly, attending the park with Pro would require force. My opponent then goes on to describe how women appreciate romance novels. He writes, "If bronto were to strike the right emotion with Con, she would be heavily biologically persuaded to go to the park with bronto. Attraction is not a choice, and this emotional connection would put Con and bronto in a biological quantum entanglement, if you will. Con would have no divine or spiritual reason to not 'cheat' or be 'adventurous' being an Atheist. She would make the rules that she feels apply." First and foremost, atheists can ascribe to objective standards of morality [1]. This includes but is not limited to Objectivism. Second, Pro assumes an attraction is potential between he and I, though that is extremely unlikely - especially considering the fact that I am a lesbian. Thus when Pro writes, "Con is using a freudian slip. Con mentions sex to bronto, a complete stranger, releasing her true, subconscious desires" we can see how painfully and embarrassingly misguided his assumptions are. Indeed by referring to "sex I would enjoy," I was specifically NOT referring to sex with bronto. Pro mentions that he is not conservative and highlights several examples of him posting from a (seemingly) pro-liberalish standpoint. That begs the question of whether or not he would support guns. Indeed my wife and I are gun enthusiasts, as evidenced by our wedding cake [2]. We strongly believe in the second amendment and the right to self-defense. When Pro suggests that tension between us might turn into sexual tension, it makes me feel uncomfortable. This increases the likelihood that I might falsely accuse him and/or react violently to a presumed sexual advance. Considering I usually have at least one type of weapon on me, this might not turn out well for Pro's best interest. My opponent claims that because I have referred to him as "strange" I have lost conduct points. Indeed the definition of strange is "not previously visited, seen, or encountered; unfamiliar or alien" which absolutely describes Pro accurately, and thus is not a breach or loss of conduct [3]. Pro also claims that if he did the traveling, transportation costs would not be an issue. Yet valuable resources would still be extended on my end, most notably time. Pro has dropped my most significant contention in this debate - the opportunity cost. By hanging out with Pro, I could not be doing other things that not only definitely give me pleasure (whereas hanging out with Pro might not), but also even if I did enjoy hanging out with Pro, I would presumably enjoy hanging out with some other person/s MORE. For instance, since I appreciate sex, I would love to spend some free time having sex. Yet I have absolutely and unabashedly have no desire to have sex with Pro whatsoever, so spending time with him would interfere on other/better opportunities. Thus even if I do appreciate spending time with Pro very much, there are still more preferable alternatives. In the last round, my opponent claims that he often does not cast moral judgment upon others. And yet he's highlighted several threads where he made some moral claims against certain politicians and ideologies. This means that Pro might lack intelligence or integrity. If he is a dishonest person, it strongly increases my potential risk in spending time with a strange man. Please extend my arguments about "stranger danger" in the digital world; an argument which my opponent has dropped. In his proactive arguments, my opponent suggests that women like strong, passionate, caring, muscular and funny men. However I have proven that I don't like men (sexually) at all, thus hanging out with a man in particular is not necessarily exciting or enticing to me. This might change Pro's desire or interest in spending time with me as well. Pro notes that by going to the park with him, we could spend time talking about our ideological differences. Yet this is not something that we must go to the park to do. Indeed, by Pro's own quotation, he and I have already discussed politics and other beliefs. So why would going to the park be preferable? In the last round, I stated many potential issues with going to the park, both pragmatically, physically and theoretically. [1] http://www.atheismandthecity.com... [2] http://www.debate.org... [3] https://www.google.com...