After/assuming this debate concludes, the contender ought to go on a date with Logical-Master

Ladies and gentleman, due to the results of the questioning which I had started with my opponent in the previous round, the format of this round shall be a little different. I'm going to start with mostly everything my opponent rebutted in the previous round. After doing this, I shall focus on the main attraction in this debate: 1) Our personality scores (I scored an INTJ and she scored an INTP) . 2) My opponent has claimed to like someone with the "bad boy" complex. Both of these matters deserve the utmost attention and shall thus be saved for last. Now, let us continue. ------>RE: "How can you know that we will be argumentative until we actually go one on one on a date?" We can't necessarily "know" per se, but we can reasonably conclude what may indeed occur. For instance, you don't have to actually experience a relationship with someone who likes to cheat on you and flirt with every other guy while in your presence to know that you wouldn't like that kind of relationship, would you? ------>RE:"Actually, I am going to a high school, but 6 of my 7 current classes are college level. So we could in fact 'help each other out' and anyways, it is just a simple date we are worrying about currently not in our entire relationship." Maybe, but there is quite a difference between taking classes which are "claimed" to be "college level" in high school and taking classes which are actually provided in college by actual college professors. Being a college student who took AP classes as well as self-proclaimed college level classes, I consider myself a good judge in claiming that although the material may be material which is discussed in college, the fact of the matter is that these teachers are still teaching at high school level, thus aren't as demanding. In other words, no 15 page papers with every sentence being cited from a different source. :D Of course, all of this is besides the point. Unless both my opponent and I are going to same college and are on the same level (which, by the time she enters college, I'll be in law school), this point can be dismissed. ----->RE:True, but we should meet each other, instead of just predicting how we would do together, we should actually try being together and see how it goes . . . we can't talk about our relationship, but we shouldn't make our over all relationship the main component How we could do in a relationship is rather relevant as the two of us not being computable won't necessarily prevent the date from being successful. The real relationship could easily result in a failure even with the date being successful. Thus, it is most important that we consider our compatibility rather than simply rely on the method that revolves around "not knowing without trying." ----->RE: Well you shouldn't date everyone, and their are reasons, first off, they must be interested in your sex gender; and must interested in general, secondly, they must have some possibility (AKA someone you find annoying you shouldn't just spontaneously ask out) we seem to have some possibility, don't you think? Ladies and gentleman, my opponent has just provided reasons as to why we should not merely date each on the basis of the idea that "we cannot know without trying". We must determine whether or not we are both interested and and whether or not there is possibility that it could work out between the two of us. Given that my job is to negate the resolution, my answer to my opponent's question is no as my job is to argue against their being possibility. :D ----->RE: "I'm not shallow enough to care, if I like you that's all that matters, I could care less about what my friends say.' Due to space constraints, I shall be omitting the part of this argument that concerned the highly likely possibility that my opponent would annoyed by my mannerisms. Still, in answer to the above, I'd say that whether or not my opponent would care about what others thought of her, my "out of the ordinary" mannerisms could prove detrimental to her if our relationship were to progress after dating. This is not merely based on what friends may think of her, but what people of financial/social power may think (employers typically). The thing about our careers in the US is that most of them judge "presentation" more than anything else and my opponent having a partner who isn't exactly in the norm when it comes to mannerisms could in fact damage her career wise (at very least, in terms of getting a promotion). ================================ INTP vs INTJ ================================ INTJ:http://www.personalitypage.com... INTP: http://www.personalitypage.com... Ladies and gentleman, if you would be so kind as to take a gander at each of these pages, you shall see for yourself that both my opponent and I do not make that good of a couple. Don't believe me? First, lets explore the weakness to both of our personality types: INTJ: -Not naturally good at expressing feelings and affections -Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times INTP: -Not naturally in tune with others' feelings; slow to respond to emotional needs -Not naturally good at expressing their own feelings and emotions It may be true that both my opponent and I would be able to satisfy our intellectual needs, but given the above affects concerning the weaknesses of our personalities, our relationship would be most likely be pretty rocky on an emotional level (which surpasses the previous need). In other words, we would hardly be able to support one another in our time of emotional need. This weakness is quite crucial as it could very well make the relationship quite a miserable one. In addition, when adding in the fact that one of the traits of INTJs is that they are very independent, the above problem concerning mutual support is amplified even further. To quote a significant line from the INTJ page: "INTJs live much of their lives inside their own heads. " To add fuel to the fire on what could amplify the above problem, let us keep in mind the following quote concerning INTPs: "INTPs do not like to deal with messy complications, such as interpersonal conflict, and so they may fall into the habit of ignoring conflict when it occurs." Ignoring a problem is not a good meas of dealing with it. In addition, this shall only detract from the ability to support as supporting one another may often come in the form of being able to deal with the conflict that exist in the relationship. In spite of other benefits that may come from this coupling (which PRO will no doubt attempt to cite), the above weakness is crucial as "supporting one another" is the most important part of a romantic relationship. And this is all I shall say regarding our personalities for the time being. If necessary, I shall expound more on the above ideas in the next round. ======================================== PRO prefers those who are 'Rugged and doing whatever needs to be done, no matter how it needs to be done ======================================== I'm not quite sure what is meant by rugged, so I'll leave that alone for now and request that she provide an example. Though in terms of doing whatever needs to be done no matter what my methods are, I am most certainly not the kind of person who lives by such mindset as I do not believe that the ends justify the means. Evidence of this fact can be shown in this debate: http://www.debate.org... In this debate, we must note that I was against the methods a fictional character who in favor of doing whatever needs to be done, no matter how it needs to be done (just read my R1). My reasons for starting this debate were based on personal belief and that I wished to debate with a fellow fan of the series who had an opposing belief. Back to you, Ms. Bricheze. :D