Personality Vs Appearances in relationships

To end this debate I would like to first start off by addressing the focus of the majority of my arguments. My opponent is correct in saying my arguments were centered around sex and science way more than most would expect a debate about love and passion should be. My arguments should have been focused around more of the advantages of being in a relationship with an attractive person. I most likely would have been able to build a case around that too but this being the last round, I'm not supposed to create any new arguments as that would be unfair since the affirmative would not be able to refute them. However, the case I did make can still be tied back to the topic at hand. Also, this debate is not over. My opponent did make some devastating errors in her rebuttal that will be brought to light. Let's begin. Con argument: Men are attracted to women that have attractive features that promote successful child-birth because this encourages reproduction. Pro counter: Women with any features, attractive or not, give birth the same way. Pro fallacy: Her counter here is obviously made without research. Even a simple search can show that wide hips, breasts, and a thin figure have a very positive impact on childbirth. Wider hips allow for an easier delivery. Bigger breasts tend to provide more milk. A thinner figure reduces birth complications. Also don't forget, all these features are what determine how attractive a woman is to the majority of men! So this would show that my argument is not "a completely ridiculous argument. " Also this reinforces my point, men are attracted to features that promote reproduction because that's the way we were designed. We need to reproduce to survive, and if men search for features in women that help us survive, there is a much better chance of this happening. Pro argument: Con admitted that he was basing his arguments on what he thought was true, with a little bit of Atheism in there. He has completely ignored this explanation, and thus that argument flows fully to the Affirmatives side, and my argument still stands. Con counter: Pro states here that I was basing my arguments on my beliefs and Atheism. While I did state my first argument on these criteria. However, I never stated my following arguments were based one such premises. I even stated that I was including the claim/fact arrangement to avoid this preposition as it was intended to take all the bias out of my argument! And I feel is does so successfully. Moving on to her next statement, I ignored her explanation on the purpose of a relationship and therefore her argument goes unrefuted and she gains the advantage because of it. Once again, she must have missed something. Her reason doesn't even support her own claim! She states that a relationship is a means of "reserving" another human for marriage. Also she throws in there that it is a means of testing a potential mate for marriage. To find out if they have a personality fit for marriage. The ironic thing about her claim is that I can use her own argument against her! She stated that since evolution wasn't known before it was conceived then my argument holds no ground. Flip some words around; Since Marriage wasn't known before it was established, then her argument holds no ground. Her argument relies upon marriage being around for relationships to have a purpose. But what happened before marriage? Sex was always around but marriage sure wasn't. The bible does state marriage started with the first couple, Adam and Eve. However my opponent stated that this was not a religious debate and should be based around fact. Which the bible is most definitely not (yet). So the fact that her argument went unadressed by me only serves to hurt her own case so the argument does not go to pros side. Con claim: Evolution could have taken effect before it was introduced. Pro counter: No it couldn't have. Since people didn't believe in Evolution, it could not have been a factor. Evolution also has less support than God does. Pro fallacy: Quite funny isn't it? My opponent discredits me by saying my arguments are based on my own speculation and then immediately starts bringing her Christian religion into the matter. I will state once again, Evolution does not need to be believed for its effects to take place. By evolution, I mean the factors that it is based around, like natural selection. Natural selection would have played a part in getting men attracted to women that are more likely to produce healthy offspring. It doesn't matter who believed in what, if evolution is fact then it would still cause people to choose potential mates based on features that promoted sex. Regardless if you're Atheist, Christian, Hindu or Muslim you would still be affected by this need to create kids. Her next point is that God is supported by much more evidence than Evolution. This too, must have been concluded without a hint of scientific research. You have the right to believe what you please, but you have to support what you say. Evolution has much more support than any religion does. There have been studies, research, and experiments performed to make evolution such a sturdy theory! None of these have been performed on any deity, with useful results anyway. As you have mentioned, this is not a debate on religion, so don't make statements that would suggest it is! Pro claim: If sex and reproduction was all to life, there would be no point to life. Also, relationships are God's gift to humans because the crave human affection. How the relationship is handled is up to the couple. Pro fallacy: Her first point states two thing that are false. 1. Life has a "point". 2. If life was just sex and reproduction, there would be no point to life.1. Life requires no point, there is nothing to suggest it does need or have one. 2. Sex and reproduction could be that "point" then, could it not? Her next statement suggests God gave us relationships because we desired human affection. But why did we desire human affection? There had to be some reason. If God made us then he obviously must have made that desire too. We couldn't just magically crave this love for other human. Our brain is where this craving takes place. There also must be a reason we crave people . Without a reason, we wouldn't crave them. So It would make sense that if god didn't make this craving, we did. We did for a reason, that reason being my argument. We crave each other because it's good for reproduction. Pro claim: She agrees that reproduction and childbirth share the same hormone but not true love. Also she defined true love for us. Con counter: What pro agrees with doesn't matter! This is a debate. I showed you that true love is only a hormone. I showed you it is the same hormone used in sex. I showed the proof. Pro gave a definition of the emotions in true love and said that is what it is. I defined what true love actually is. A chemical, nothing more. Oxytocin and Vasopressin. That's why we feel "true love". Pro claim: Since "Love" and "True Love" are not synonyms with "Reproduction" then my statement " Reproduction and True Love are two names given to the same thing. " Con counter: My opponent left out a crucial detail. I never made that statement. I made the statement "according to our brains, reproduction and "true love" are merely two names given to the same thing. " Notice the difference? I said " according to our brains". Meaning that since the brain assigns the same hormone to Love and sex, they are the same thing to our brain, therefore the have the same purpose, kids. Also the synonym thing was a pretty lame argument. Synonyms of Love: Passion, Honey, Lovemaking, Sexual, and Beloved. Nothing about personality In there. See? It's not very convincing. So that concludes this debate. Out of characters so Sources will be in comments.