For women, it's better to be average-looking than exceptionally beautiful

Let's go line by line. She starts by claiming I use "average-looking" as a euphemism for "ugly". I did no such thing. I'd ask where I did so, but alas. Last round. This is also where she skews the debate to impossibility for me by defining average looking as attractive. As she's supposed to be defending average-looking females and I'm supposed to be more attractive females, this gives me literally no ground to advocate for on the resolution. This highly abusive tactic is insanely unfair, and I thought this was only found in the realms of high-school debating. Sad day I have to deal with it here, without the safety of my theory shells. Oh well. Regardless, her attempts at making my arguments off-topic by skewing the debate should not stand, as it a) is shifting the goalposts of the debate from the resolution, making HER arguments off-topic, and b) is insanely abusive to me as it gives me nothing to advocate for, thus ruining the purpose of the debate. Her description of ugly women is rather detailed and grotesque, and highly irrelevant. Her evaluation of the argument not including the "average looking" is highly interesting, though. Even if it's true, though, it doesn't address the arguments 58% of women who were more attractive received higher ratings than those who were average looking and below and the argument that more attractive people make 3% to 4% more income than those who are average or bad looking. So my point still stands. My opponent says the causal relationship to my second actually runs backwards, that babies who get more attention are more attractive, but 1) that doesn't do anything to undermine the argument, 2) there's no proof to her claim, whereas my proof is backed by a Harvard psychologist (think I win that one), and 3) it doesn't address the rest of the arguments made there, such as above average looking women have easier times in court and with law enforcement. The rest of my arguments still stand. Y'know, for someone who claims that my arguments are really bad and off-topic, she seems to be having a hard time addressing them all. That's two out of the three arguments that she failed to a) adequetly respond to and b) address fully. This gives clear benefits that are exclusive to more attractive women, which means you negate the resolution really easily. She claims that none of my sources examine the difference between average and better looking women (they clearly do), and that it includes unattractive people and thus aren't relevant (false, it makes it more indicative of the truth as it examines the full scale of attractiveness). And with that, all arguments against my case are refuted. Resolution being negated. But let's keep things going and address her defenses. Again her defense of her first point relies on her skewing the debate to mean average is attractive (which I already explained why she shouldn't be allowed to do that) so that defense is automatically denied. But instead of actually addressing my argument she dances around it without actually responding to it. Not all EXCEPTIONALLY BEAUTIFUL (applies the same way as my previous argument) hate guys talking to them and approaching them. She never warrants why this is the case for ALL women, and thus her lumping of all women into one big massive hate-fest against guys falls as massively unwarranted. And you say that women can't avoid men, but never warrant this either. Women can clearly avoid men by leaving when they attempt to approach her or by telling the men to back off either verbally or physically (it's universally known among men that a slap means you're doing something wrong. How they react to it is up to them). Her new source (by the way, I have no idea what Perilloux, Easton & Buss means, and thus cannot ascertain the credability of who you are citing) should not be weighed prima facie because it's posted in the last round, and thus is highly unfair to me who posted my information beforehand. But even if it is weighed, it really doesn't have all that much of an impact on the round because women can still solve back for this overprediction of their interest by disabusing them of the notion. Right after that, though, she fallaciously claims that because of her source, ALL MEN believe that ALL beautiful women are sexually attracted to them, which is a massively flawed claim as a) her source proves nothing like this, and b) it's clearly not true because not all men believe that all beautiful women are sexually into them. All my arguments against her point 1 still stand. She won't be getting any offense off of that argument. As for her second point, she starts with a tyrade against the militaristic nature of Israel (Objection! Relevance, your honor). She then uses that to try and segway into a point about how beautiful women obsess over their looks and value themselves, yet never responds to my argument about why this is a bad thing. She just assumes that this is bad, yet never explains why this is bad. Because she failed to do so, and the information she provided that never explained so was new as well, that point gets dropped. She then accuses me of using sexual relationship points to address work relationships. While I did mention the difference between sexual preferences, that was not my sole point. You can easily refer back to where I mention that females can be the bread-winners for their family and that the men can be the stay-at-home parents, which has nothing to do with sex. Her refusal to read through the entirety of my arguments against her case will be her downfall here. She then goes on to say that men will help women get ahead up to the point that they are getting to move past them, and then will suddenly change tact and work against them and become sexist against them. Not only is this a brand new argument, but its claim requires massive amounts of warrant, and she doesn't provide a single word of warrant. There's no reason to look at this point, even if you gave it weight in the round. With the last of her arguments refuted, the round breaks down really simply for voters:1) She warrants none of her claims made in her case, and all of her sources come in during the last round, which is incredibly unfair to me.2) She shifts the goalposts for this debate to a manner that excludes me from having any ground in the resolution by trying to define average as attractive.3) She drops the vast majority of the arguments I make in my case, only picking and chosing from a select few to address.4) She never fully responds to the arguments I make against her case. Overall, this is an easy vote for the negative debater, and thus I urge voters to vote for con in this debate. Thanks for reading! :D