Men are always hungry for sex

On the topic of discussionMy opponent has admitted more or less that, for all intents and purposes, men do not desire sex all the time. She now states that they have an "inert desire" for sex which may or may not be manifest in their outward behavior. One could easily question that this was Pro's original meaning. Her statement, quoted in the first round, said that women getting into a relationship with a man were "idiots" if they did not expect the man to pressure them for sex to the point where they may feel as if they are being "raped" (i. e. , outward behavior). It was not until the absurdity of her claim was aggressively attacked that she backpedaled and stated that a man's alleged constant desire for sex is subconscious. [1]She did not respond to my assertion that, by her own logic, women should also desire sex all the time. My opponent is correct in saying that women's sex drives are not the topic of debate here, however one must wonder what meaning her original comment has if she believes that women and men both have a constant subconscious desire for sex. Also, one may consider that Pro accepted this debate when no such nuances of conscious or subconscious desire were provided in the first round or the resolution and offered no such nuances until I had attacked her argument in R2. By anyone's rules of debate, she is required to argue the resolution, not her statements in a forum thread. However, I think it is only sportsmanlike to allow her to defend her now abridged statements since she has been brave enough to back down from her original misogynistic position, as getting her to do so was the purpose of this debate challenge to begin with. On "poisoning the well"Given that my opponent has frequently attacked other members, both in debates and forum threads, I felt it was quite reasonable to ask that she refrain from such behavior in this debate. Also, given her tendency to attack members and then justify the attack I felt I needed to provide an example of exactly what I expect her to refrain from. On the existence of asexuality as a sexual orientationMy opponent dismissed the existence of asexuals by stating that my source is merely a "wiki page. " It is bad sportsmanship to dismiss an argument based on source alone, to say the least. In order for the counter-argument to be valid, the debater must show why the source is not only suspect but invalid or incorrect. That being said, allow me to present some other sources proving the existence of asexuals for the satisfaction of my opponent. In a paper published by the respected Kinsey Institute titled "Asexuality: Classification and Characterization," researchers Nicole Prause and Cynthia Graham stated that,Asexuals were most clearly distinguished from non-asexuals by their lower/absent scores on the Dyadic Sexual Desire subscale, lower scores on the Solitary Sexual Desire subscale, and lower scores on the Sexual Arousability Scale. [2]In the journal Sexualities, Kristin Scherrer published a paper titled "Coming to an Asexual Identity: Negotiating Identity, Negotiating Desire" which documents asexuality and the behavior it engenders. The paper drew upon the experience of 102 self-identified asexuals. [3]On Freudian theoryI find it somewhat amusing that although my opponent's argument rests on the unproven and highly contested psychoanalytical models of Sigmund Freud she challenges the existence of asexuals, a well-documented phenomenon. One must admit that this is somewhat ironic. Freud's model of psychoanalysis is unproven[4] and is in competition with contradictory and more modern models, such as conflict theory, ego psychology and object relations theory. [5]Because Freud's beliefs in this area are unsubstantiated, they may not be used to substantiate another claim as my opponent has done. Unless my opponent can provide some sort of evidence or argument as to why the Freudian model of psychoanalysis should be favored over other models, she has not presented an argument for her claim but merely a simple presentation of Freud's beliefs. On absolutismIn her R2 speech, my opponent stated,“The major problem with my opponent's argument is that it is absolutist in nature, claiming that all men want sex all the time. My opponent does not have the necessary knowledge to make such a claim. ” Well, this is amusing. My opponent said that people can’t claim things in such an “absolutist” way, and then claims something in an absolutist way. Clearly, there a contradiction in my opponent’s logic. So, which one is it, Jordan? An absolute claim is only problematic if it requires absolute knowledge. I do not need such knowledge to know that my opponent does not possess it. I look forward to Pro's rebuttal. Sources1. . http://www.debate.org...2. . http://www.kinseyinstitute.org...3. . http://sexualities.sagepub.com...4. . https://www.boundless.com...5. . http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...