THB: That on balance it is preferable to have a small penis.

Overview: Reviewing the resolutionMy adversary asserts that he does not care what a primary purpose of a penis is but what is preferable for that specific person. The logical equivalent to this is like saying, its preferable to have legs but not walk. The reason its preferable to have leg's is because you can in fact walk, that is the primary purpose of a leg and thus why it is preferable. You can apply all his arguments ( I will refute this shortly) in the same context to this subject. Girls with long legs are smarter than girls with short leg's, etc and so forthWhy is preferable to have a penis, because we use to it have sex. That is the purpose of it objectively and preference for the standpoint of this debate is in direct regards to sexual activity. Anyone can prefer anything, but why would it be preferable to have a larger or smaller penis in general. To perform sexual acts better or worse. This is a logical deduction based on the premise behind the debate. Preference is as my adversary states, is based on personal opinion. Then however we must evaluate which is on balance more preferable and why it is more preferable. As a penis's primary purpose is sex, that is one of the most touched on reasons as to why size is a factor. So now let's continueC1) Women's PreferenceThe straw man from wylted on this was literally real. Real to the point I cried. It was a good attempt to shift the contention though. Asserting that a women's preference is not a viable factor does not matter because she has no penis is shifting the entire premise behind this point. Refer this to a sportIn football it is preferable to be tall as a QB. Why is it preferable to be tall? Because you can see over the line and pass effectively. When you are performing in the sport this is a consensous among coaches, recruits, and scouts alike. So if you were going to be a QB in football and were given the choice to be small or tall, you would logically pick tall. The opinions of the coaches and the overall factor of performance would be a few primary reason as to why you would prefer it yourself. The same concept is applied to sexIn sex it is preferable to have a larger dik. Why is it preferable to have a larger dick? Because you can give a woman pleasure better, give her sensations better, and overall just please her better in bed. When you are preforming in bed, it is a consensus among all women that a larger dik is better ( see R1 sources). So if you wanted to have sex and please a woman to the greatest ability you could, and you had the choice to have a 5 inch or smaller dick, or a larger dik, you would logically pick the larger dik. The thoughts and the opinions of women and the overall performance factor of sex would be a few of the primary reasons as to why you would prefer a larger dik yourself. So yes their opinions do matter, because a Diks primary purpose is to make them have an orgasm or please them in bed. You can cop out and suck at it sure, but your goal as a guy is to have the best sex possible and for that to happen their thoughts and opinions have to matter. And they objectively think it's better to have a big dik and most agree it is more pleasurable. To say women underestimate size is a giant understatement as well. Sure some people will mistake sizes but comparing 4 inches to seven inches is a long, long , long shot and by no means a viable argument in this debate. He would have to show that on balance almost everyone women mistakes 7 inch diks for diks that are in fact 5 inches or below 90 percent of the time. On a side note, the surveys and studies I posted ruled out that fact, as the variables and conditions of the sizes were revealed prior to the testing. Almost every study I sited, was similar to what my adversary stated. A guy whipped out his dik and showed it to a girl and she touched it, etc and so forth. They did not know the size, but picked the dik the liked the most. On balance and like 90 percent of the time , the girls always chose a dik over 6.5 inches most being over 7. The sources and study is in round 1. As I stated this entire round was a huge strawman, and took away from the actually contention behind the argument which is women prefer bigger diks and because of that guys are inclined to want them because they can please women. This contention has not even been touched. C2) Sexual PleasureI concede the fact that vaginal orgasms are harder to reach that clitoral orgasm. This is not debate and a truism, but look at the facts and the point behind this debate. A dick is not even requred to give a woman a clitoral orgasm, but say you are having sex and want to try to make her have a vaginal orgasm. The 25 percent of the time my adversary is referring to ( I'm just going to concede this number because it does not matter), probably 100 percent of that 25 percent is reached with a dik that is above 5 inches. As a dik that has no girth or is smaller than 5 inches would be able to vaginally stimulate a girl to the point of an orgasm. So even in this situation it is still more preferable to have a larger dik than bigger dikC3) Gay Guys like Big Diks tooThis entire thing is faulty, as most straight guys are not going to have sex with a gay guy. Hince them being straight. Gay guys are going to have sex with gay guys. Gay guys like bigger diks, so on balance if you are a gay and get to chose between a small or larger dik, you are going to chose a larger one for the same reason a straight guy would chose it due to women like it. Both gay guys and women like bigger diks, so no matter if you are straight or gay, a bigger dik is always preferableR1) Dick Size and Crime / Dick size and intelligence. I fear we have no entered into the real of trolling which was not where I wanted to go. Let me lay out this same logic and show you why it is flawed(P1) African Americans have thicker skulls than any other ethnicity [1](P2) African Americans have bigger diks than any other ethnicity(C) People with thick skulls have big diksAgain this is saying because p1 is p2 then p1p2. The same line of logic is used in my adversaries argument in both intelligence and crime(P1) African Americans commit the most crime among most ethnic races. (P2) African Americans have bigger diks than most ethnic races(C) African Americans commit crimes because they have a bik dikAgain this is saying because p1 is p2, then p1p2. The fact of the matter is p1 does not necessitate p2 nor does it necessitate p1p2. A flow in logic like this requires a viable standpoint. This is a valid syllogism(P1) All humans are sentient beings. (P2) Dan is a human(C) Dan is a sentient beingWhy it his valid? because p1 and p2 do in fact necessitate each other. All humans are objectively sentient beings, and Dan is objectively human. Since Dan is a human and all humans are sentient, Dan is a sentient being. The issue with wylteds sllogysim is that it is inferingOn balance Africans commit the most crimes of ethnic races, Africans on balance have larger diks than most ethnic races. Therefore Africans are commit crime because they have large diks. P1 and P2 do not logically follow nor necessitate each other properly so the syllogism is invalid. A proper syllogism would be(P1) Adam is African American(P2) African Americans generally have larger Diks(C) Adam probably has a large dik. Then(P1) Adam is African American(P2) African Americans have the highest crime rate among other ethnic races(C) Adam has a higher probability of committing crime than most other ethnic races. He is trying to combine two different syllogisms, which is a logical fallacy. Then by extension is he arguing that big diks alone necessitate crime with the opposing syllogisms. The same logic is used with smaller diks and intellect. I ran out of room to address the rest of this properly, but he then assumes that bigger diks cause higher levels of testosterone and testosterone causes people to get angry and commit crimes. Testosterone is not the primary cause for men getting angry, it is a trigger but not the reason so it actually does not trigger crime. [2] [1] http://book.neurosurgeon.org...[2] http://www.scientificamerican.com...