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

Salutations to my opponent and many thanks for taking up this 'momentous' debate. My opponent has requested that I not provide any arguments that concern the notion of meeting people online as well as the many possible negative aspects of such a decision, ergo . . . being the debater that I am, I shall use no such argument in this debate and shall still prove my stance beyond the notion of a doubt. With that said, let us proceed: First, lets start with the contenders arguments: RE: "First off, I am single :) We would make a good couple because we both enjoy debates and philosophical discussion. We largely agree, with 72% of our issues being the same. Our disagreances aren't on major issues and we would get along well. We also both students and could help each other through school." 1) It's true that we agree on 72% of our issues and that we both like debating as well as philosophical discussion . . . however, as one may note through quickly viewing the 109 debates which I've debated on this site, the "issues" do not interest nor do I think of them as having any real importance in terms of my word view. Furthermore, as can be described by the book "Type Talk" (Kroeger 226), individuals of my personality type (scroll down to see what my personality type is) are known as being argumentative: "INTJs are among the most independent of the sixteen types. Their theme song may be "My Way." As with other NTs, this independence often gives them an aura of arrogance that makes in-depth relationships develop slowly. At both work and play they can often seem aloof and sometimes argumentative. For INTJs, such behavior is simply the result of their attempt to stimulate the world around them . . . The problem is that an INTJ's friendly discussion may be seen by others as hostile, even obnoxious behavior." So essentially, it is most likely that my love for debate would be a means of making the date lousy, given that this is how I would most likely appear in the eyes of my opponent. 2) Whereas my opponent is merely a high school student (most likely a sophomore), I am a college student. Thus, the notion that we'd be able to help one another is a wee bit preposterous given that we are both subjected to vastly different levels of education. In addition, by the time my opponent becomes a college student, I will be in law school, thus furthering the differences in our education. Thus, the idea that aiding one another in terms of education is thrown out of the window. RE: "Also, why shouldn't we try? It's always good to try on any relationship, just one date to see if we would be interested in each other. Initially, my opponent has claimed that this debate should mainly concern how a relationship between the two of us would play out, but this point in itself does not observe the potential good or bad to such a relationship. Nevertheless, I would have to disagree with the "give it a shot; what's there to lose" sentiment given that there are easier means of determining whether or not we are interested in one another. Otherwise, why shouldn't one go on a date with just about every individual they've come into contact with? After all, this would allow one to see whether or not their was mutual interest with every other individual they know, right? Now, let us move on to my case . . . ============================================================================ CONTENTION #1: There is reason to believe that Logical-Master's skills are quite laughable when it comes to dealing with the opposite sex. ============================================================================ Let us take this discussion into consideration: http://www.debate.org... "First of all, LM suggested you start a line with the word 'Say' ... as in, "Say, if you're not busy this weekend..." ... uh, is that a joke??? It's not 1952! Please oh please do NOT start a sentence with the word "Say" in it. LM, that was about the corniest thing you could possibly say. And if it was a joke, well, it's not funny so it'sstill corny lol :P" First, we must keep in mind that the user who quoted this can be identified as a very experienced woman (which I shall elaborate on if necessary) and therefore a HIGHLY RELIABLE source. Second, I do use the word "say" quite often when speaking. Not just "say", but quite a few other mannerisms which were only popular in the early 50s . Clearly, if Ms Bricheze and I were to go on a date, she'd merely laugh at me, slap me, or perhaps even sneak out under the guise that she had to go "powder herself up" due to how "lame" I am. In others word, a date which the both of us would wish to place in the back of our minds as soon as possible. Of course, even if Ms. Bricheze were to SOMEHOW look past these lame characteristics, there is no doubt that even being around something as "corny" as myself would be detrimental to her appearance in front of others. Either way, not a good idea. Now I have a few additional arguments to make, but shall not make them until I know the answer to the following question which I had posited towards my opponent in the comment section: " Say . . . are you (the opposition) the kind of girl who is interested in being with the "bad boy." In terms of bad boy, I mean the kind that can be described here: http://www.askmen.com... I already have a suspicion of what her answer shall be, but just wish to be sure so that I am assuming nothing. In addition, I request that my opponent take this Myers Briggs Personality:http://www.humanmetrics.com... . After taking it, I would like here to tell me the four letters she received as describing her personality. She need not worry about length as its short as should take 2 minutes at most. To show that I have no tricks up my sleeve, I shall go ahead and reveal my score. I scored an INTJ (although it must be noted that on real life tests, I've always scored an INTJ/INTP). Sources: Kroeger, Otto. and Janet M. Thuesen. [underline]Type Talk: The 16 Personality Types that determine how we live, love and work[/underline] Tiden Press, 1988. And that'll do it for now.