Men are always hungry for sex

Well, it appears that my opponent has forfeited. However, in the event that his forfeit does not convince you that I’ve won, I’ll quickly explain why… Firstly, I’ve seen a few comments, in the comments section, that seem off, considering the debate. My arguments here ARE NOT: 1) Men can’t control themselves 2) Men are always, consciously, wanting sex 3) Men are rapists 4) Men are unable to think of anything but sex 5) Sex drives do not vary, at all, and men are always raving for sex All my round three arguments have been dropped. These include: Irrelevant arguments My opponent made several, irrelevant arguments, which included comments about the nature of women’s sexual drive, worrying about the original meaning of what I said (in the thread, which is not part of the debate) and comments on the rest of my quoted comment, which, largely, has very little to do with the debate. Hopefully, even before his response, it should be abundantly clear that we’re debating whether “men are always hungry for sex”, rather than any of these irrelevant points of contention. Poisoning the well There was simply no need for that quote, at all. My opponent could have simply reminded me of the debate rules WITHOUT having the quote me out of context. It’s so obvious that he was trying to attack my character! Even if you don’t agree with this, he never responded to this particular criticism of his actions, and thus it should stand. Asexuality My opponent had two attempts at ‘proving’ the existence of asexuality. The first one involved quoting a definition from a wiki-page. Again, as I have said, having a definition of ‘dragons’ does not prove that they exist. The second one involved quoting research, of which involved asking people as to how they felt, and then performing elaborate calculations. I don’t think expressing feelings is substantial; is the Pope the messenger of God because people feel that he is? Besides, again, he opponent never responded to my criticisms, and so they should stand. Freudian theory My opponent, in the end, basically made unsubstantiated claims, such as ‘the theory is unproven’, or that it is contradicted by other models. Firstly, I asked by what standard is the theory unproven. Evolution is still regarded as a theory, but that does not mean it’s without substantial evidence, right? Evolution is still ‘unproven’, but it’s widely accredited as being highly plausible. My opponent hasn’t elaborated on what he meant, therefore he really doesn’t have an argument, here. Secondly, Freud’s model does not contradict the other models, in regards to the subconscious sexual drive aspect. I mean, my opponent doesn’t even begin to explain why any of these theories contradict, he merely asserts it. Lastly, Freud is still used today, as I referenced earlier. If Freud’s theories are really as bad as my opponent is trying to make them out to be, then why are institutions using them? Why am I finding sources that say Freud’s work is credible, at least to some extent? I’ve shown multiple instances where Freud’s work is still being used. Besides, and again, my opponent offers no counter-argument to this. Absolutism I’m just going to quote myself from the last round, because there isn’t much need to discuss this point: “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.” ‘How could my opponent possibly determine this? In saying that I can’t make absolute claims, my opponent is making an absolute claim. He says: “My opponent does not have the necessary knowledge to make such a claim.” Clearly, the implications of his claim are exceedingly problematic. How could he ever reach such a conclusion? He hasn’t even given logical framework for his conclusion. He’s just merely asserted, in an absolute way, that he knows I don’t know.’ Concluding thoughts I want to first thank Jordan for offering a chance to defend my argument, real than yell at each other in the forums. My comments were being misconstrued, and it’s great to have them fleshed-out so that everyone can see that I don’t hate men, or that I think all men are rapists. I also wish to thank you, for reading whatever you read. If you’re a man, please understand that I don’t hate you. I don’t think that all men are berserk psychos that can’t control themselves, when it comes to women. Anyway, thank you :)