The typical American ‘date' is simply a social work around for prostitution being illegal.

"While, by its very definition, whoring is …" I guess you're just going to repeat yourself and hope I give up from frustration. Lack of return means nothing, intention is everything. If the woman intends to profit from her sex appeal and the man intends to try and buy sex, then it's whoring, and as such the typical American date is a legal work around for whoring being illegal. I know you love this argument and repeat it dozens of times, and my response will remain the same. They were removed for space. Stupid Char limit. "Over the course of even a single date, …" That's a big assumption how can you know this? Sure it would be nice if this were the case and sometimes it is, but it usually isn't. Half of all marriages end in divorce, how many dates end in non-marriage? "The social aspect …" And the social aspect is boiled down to a series of priorities with sex appeal and money being at the top. How many men do you know date absolutely vapid women because they are attractive, and how many women do you know that date total monsters with money? Tons as we all know. "Just because a guy is looking to get laid on …" So, if I go to a crack house intending to buy crack and I bring a playstation 3 I bought to give to the dealer as a gift and he decides to give me some crack as a gift I didn't just buy crack? Intention is everything. "In order for dating to be a workaround …" There is. That's my whole point. The majority of women who go on typical dates can be bought. The amount of money spent by men on women at bars, movies, restaurants, on gifts, clothing, and cars all prove my point. We spend more on beauty products then health care. If spending money didn't buy you sex, the whole American economy would collapse. Almost all male expenditures are directly or indirectly sexually motivated. Precisely because selling sex directly is illegal. "If dating was a workaround…" And they are. Ask any girl the pressure she is under to submit to sexual advances as the number of dates mount. "Here is my argument for the poor hero…" You cast yourself as the classist villain, don't blame me. You said… "the money factor is simply an indication of quality. Women don't want to date men who have signals of slothfulness and irresponsibility" So, being poor is a "signal of slothfulness and irresponsibility" and your income level is "an indication of quality." So yes, you were trying to "show that poor people are of some lesser quality." There is no ambiguity. You (still) should at least have the sand to claim that rather atrocious and disgusting sentiment. Also, don't call me or my arguments pathetic. I took nothing out of context, you clearly don't know what the phrase means other than it's a common response. "My 'poor hero' example wasn't …" Nor did I claim it was, (straw man) your statement of income equating to character was what you used to show that poor people are of lesser quality. Your poor hero concept is meant to show that people can get laid for free, and I do not dispute that. But that has no impact on the nature of the typical American date. "This is just a reflection of your cynical outlook …" My cynicism is irrelevant so long as my facts are straight, and again stop trying to make this personal. The typical date does not occur in the rain, or at zero cost. "Whoring is no more a personality mesh …" Agreed. But the fact is business transactions are very personal. Hence the cloying sycophantic clichï¿½ used car salesman. Image and impression are everything, ask any sales rep. Take a business or marketing class, and if you have, do it again and pay attention this time to personal interaction chapters. People skills are business skills. "Just like if I think the price …" Which is also why I don't date. (Feel free to turn this into a high school insult, but rest assured I've heard it before.) "Therefore, dating isn't whoring. Now …" If fulfilling the emotional requirements come with a dollar amount price tag, then yes. Tricking the public into turning money issues into emotional issues is a big part of our problem as a society. Diamonds do not equal love, despite what Kay would have you believe. "The only way for the point …" You, and all those that think like you seem to, make my skin crawl, just a personal note. For one, statistical analysis and sociological surveys could confirm my position, assuming people responded and were honest. Ask people about first dates, ask how much they spend, how often the dates resulted in sex and the initial goal for each member. You'll find a correlate between expenditure with consummation, you'll find that overwhelmingly the initial motivator on the part of men is sexual attraction and for women its income career security concerns etc, when it's not just lust in return. I'm already convinced I don't need to do the research, if you wish to prove me wrong feel free, I'm sure there's a sociology paper here no matter who is right. For two, and this is the part that makes my skins crawl, sluts give it away, we're talking about whores. I see no negative connotation in anything that costlessly brings pleasure to another human being. The word slut the way you use it is ugly. It's like a racial slur. People have a right to sleep with who they please so long as they do so responsibly and you have no right to defame women for doing the very thing men are lauded for. Sex is a human right. I've already won that debate. "Because you say your arguments …" Logic is not a matter of opinion. "Posturing your jaded opinion …" I've provided logical conclusions stemming from observation of real events; you refuse to acknowledge them because they are unpleasant for you. I am sorely tempted to theorize why but again that would merely be a personal attack until it becomes germane to the debate. "Just because you make …" Do you really want to get into epistemology with me? How much can I prove with mere text? All I can do is show logical cause to draw certain conclusions, and I feel of course that I've done that. But if you really want to play then prove to me that your definition of proof is valid. :) "Tell me the conrete, …" How for example am I expected to prove that spending more means more sex without following around millions of couples with a camera all the way into the bedroom? I would simply say that it seems very likely that expenditure is linked with consummation. Certainly there are thousands of cultural examples, the most recent and common of which being dating shows and rap videos. Even if you had a point, just because I cannot prove it in this forum does not mean that it cannot be proven. "Why would there be a need for whoring …" The same need you have for money laundering when you buy a ton of cocaine. "So, my question to you is…how is it whoring without sex?" The same way attempted murder is still a crime. Intent. "The sex HAS TO HAPPEN …" See above. And, since you're so keen on definitions, I'd suggest you look up the legal ones related to solicitation and then revise your argument. "Dating is much more complex …" None at all? They why do the vast majority of dates cost the man something other than time? "A husband can intend …" Oh boy new can of worms finally! Yes, most marriages are long term sexual contracts, that's why extra martial sex ends marriages. Trust is not sex, love is not sex, sex is sex. But that's a whole other debate, one which I am happy to have with you if you're up to it at a later date, it's off topic here. In summation I'm just going to say that I'm very disappointed. You wasted a great deal of time. And I fully expect more pedantic nonsense in the final round. I suppose there is an upside, those who actually read the debates will grow as weary of your arguments as I am. P.S. This was much more complete but the character limit sucks.