Topic To Be Chosen During Debate

Prepare yourself Kleptin as your defeat is imminent! Engarde! RE:"The situation described would only work out if a girl showed significant interest in the first place." There's no denying that my situation works under the scenario where it is a girl who has significant interest, but that's just it: If the girl has significant interest, why should she really be prevented from pursuing her interest even if that requires that she be the one to make the first move? If not, then we simply have a situation where a girl cannot act on her own desires due to the meddlesome nature of the social code. RE: "The situation described would only work out if a girl showed significant interest in the first place.." This argument only works under the idea that the burden is switched to women entirely, HOWEVER, as dictated, I'm insisting that the burden be made equal. Thus, the guy in that scenario wouldn't necessarily come to a conclusion that would cause his esteem to lower several levels. Rather, the guy in question would see that this girl has no intention on making the first move, thus, it would be up to him to do so. Or rather, the one who made the first move would be the one who desired the relationship the most. In addition, the reason these people are somewhat fearful of asking others out in the first place is because the burden is mostly on them, thus, these individuals are PRESSURED severely, hence why they fear making a mistake (fear of rejection). My plan eliminates the pressure and doesn't require a "trial and error" process (such as the one CON describes when giving his personal testimony). Thus, as an unintended bonus, one could conclude that most individuals would not be so fearful or overly anxious of this matter in the first place if my proposal was the status quo. Nevertheless, if you don't buy this, I'll continue arguing under the assumption that even under my proposal, this kind of social anxiety would still exist. RE: "This would be the other alternative . . . would the girl really like him anyway?" Perhaps in our current system, she wouldn't. However, in my system, there would be no need for flirting. I believe we can both agree that women who are flirtatious are typically women who don't possess inefficient social skills. Thus, rather than have women play this little flirting game (which even my opponent insinuates is an imperfect method), why not just allow women to be direct? Thus, even if this guy is hardheaded enough not to completely understand the machinations of flirting as well as how to deal with it, the relationship will still be able to initiate itself flawlessly. RE: "And if she does like him that much, why would social codes matter to her in that situation?" Social codes matter a great deal to the typical human. As suggested in Code Geass, societies would not function if we all didn't play these roles effectively; it is necessity that we are able to put on these mask and play our parts to the very end. A women could very well like a man a great deal enough to ignore his social flaws or inability to follow the social code to perfection, however, this doesn't insure that this women in question would like a man moreso than she fears not abiding by the social code. "Either that, or the girl herself is too socially awkward to flirt or display interest. In that case, no amount of re-balancing the courtship responsibilities between male and female could help the couple anyway." Before I divulge, I'd like to know what CON means by this. Is he insisting that the relationship would fail based on this fact (assuming the relationship was initiated) or is he insisting that the relationship would never start. "Our social code is not "Guys MUST be the ones to ask girls out", simply that "It is the norm for guys to ask girls out." Straw man fallacy. Who said anything about our social code being that "guys must be the ones to ask girls out?" What I'm dictating is that the norm be replaced with "It is the norm that either guys or girls ask vice versa out." "The social code my opponent is arguing . . . choice out of several willing candidates." HA,BIOLOGY DOESN'T EXIST! EVERYONE KNOWS THAT BIOLOGY IS SIMPLY A LIE PROPAGATED BY THE LIBERAL MEDIA IN ATTEMPT TO KILL US! But seriously, this biology point is ineffective against my case. Ineffective: Men would still be able to show their worth and women would still be able to make a choice (although the very fact that women make the choice in the first place goes against CON's case as he is simply suggesting that women play games to let men know they are interested whereas MEN are actually the one's to make the choice. This is an obvious contradiction given that other species do the exact opposite: More on this later). All my plan does is make the initiation phase (in terms of asking each other out) simpler to pull off for even those who social skills aren't quite as good as others. "I personally believe that shy . . .to argue that we should even the odds is to take away one of nature's preemptive weeding out techniques." I'll cover CON's argument on the genetic roles of men and women while simultaneously dealing with his argument that shy/socially anxious men should still be given a hoop to leap through. The key problem with his argument is that it goes about assuming that men who are deemed "shy and socially anxious" are regarded as weak, however, I submit that more often than not, this is quite the opposite. Since CON insist on sharing his experience and observations on society, I shall do so as well. While visiting online forums such as debate.org, one thing I notice is that many of its members have "relationship" problems (as in they can't get a date or are too socially anxious to ask someone out freely). Now one could very well consider this to be a weakness, however, at the same time, I noticed that those who aren't exactly "social-gods" make up for such weakness with uncanny mental prowess. In addition, I notice that those who are skilled debaters yet still "socially anxious" are quite adept at performance (at least this can be said for formal debaters) in front of others. I cannot help but say that I notice no such strong correlation with those who are mostly extroverted. Thus, I'd say it's fair to say that those who are socially anxious typically make up for such weakness with mental strengths, whereas it's vice versa for those who are mostly extroverts. Thus, it is rather clear that both parties balance out in terms of the strength/weakness department. RE: "Socially Anxious men lack confidence" This would assume that all people who are socially anxious when it comes to asking another individual are not confident by any means, however, just because one may lack confidence when it comes "leaping through the hoop" (as CON puts it), it does not mean they lack confidence entirely. In other words, let us assume that the user known as DucoNihilum doesn't possess the confidence to ask theLwerd out on a date. Although he may not possess confidence in this department, this says nothing about his confidence in terms of his debate skills, photography skills, or anything else which he is a good at. Thus, theLwerd could still see him as possessing confidence and still be interested in him. E Re: "socially awkward is potentially harmful to their growth." Besides my prior argument that social anxiety would be deterred through my system, lets look at this differently. Let us say my plan works and dating is hence made much easier. This person who may have been socially awkward (although keep in mind that I'm only arguing for people who are socially awkward in terms of asking another individual out) could even still develop social skills upon socializing with his/her potential partner for a good amount of time, hence, social anxiety is still deterred. This argument may need elaboration so I'll clarify next round due to space problem