Women Love Men Who are Generally Attractive more than Specifically Attractive

Okay. So your argument is a sham. No better way to put it. -----> This is a conduct point for Pro. Insults are not arguments. You say that woman favor men who adopt a holistic dating strategy. But all the factors you name have nothing to do with strategy, They're physical attributes. So now you've moved the goalpost. -----> As stated in the first round, holistic is defined as "focused on the sum total of the person; including physical, Mental, Emotional and other characteristics of the individual and his life. " So a holistic strategy would be a strategy that favors being generally attractive rather than being hyper attractive in one particular criterion while letting others be unattractive. -----> Also stated in round one: "By accepting this debate you accept the rules, Rounds, Definitions, And BOP. " Your time to debate the definitions was before the debate, Not after it starts. . . -----> Furthermore, Is Con trying to make the argument here that "They're all physical attributes"? -----> Dependability, Emotional stability, Kindness, Positive interactions with children, Industriousness, And bravery are behaviors that offer behavioral cues to women. How a man smells offers an olfactory, chemical cue to women. Social status and leadership offer a social cues to women. Mindfulness, Intelligence, Happiness, And will-power display mental cues to women. -----> Those are not physical attributes and all are backed up by science in my arguments above. Add in physical attributes (symmetry, Muscularity, Height), Material cues (wealth displays), And auditory cues (deep voice) and were already up to seven different categories of attributes that women are attracted to and the more holistic the strategy is (the more generally attractive a man is in summation of these characteristics) the more attracted to him she will be, Because he solves several adapted problems of evolution. Then you make a false comparison and say that specifically skilled people like athletes, Musicians, Etc. Also fall into the category of generally attractive. But it's not a fair comparison. You're comparing inherent qualities with a skill. That is not what your argument is suppose to be. You are suppose to be comparing a holistic strategy to a singular one. That means all of those attributes you mentioned are non sequiturs to the argument. ----> A faulty* comparison is defined as "Comparing one thing to another that is really not related, In order to make one thing look more or less desirable than it really is. " For example, So now you got to pick a boat to be in. If you're arguing for physical attributes, Then you're not allowed to use strategies, If you pick strategies, You are not allowed to pick attributes. -----> I always argued for the same thing: that a holistic strategy, That is one tha Furthermore, Everything you've said up until now are merely baseless assertions. Even if they are quotes, That just makes them somebody else's opinions. I see no hard data to support what you're saying. Unless you can give me hard data to back it up, Then you really don't have sources, You just have more opinions. -----> I cited 12 sources above that refer to scientific studies. If you count scientific books as sources then it's 14 sources. Who told you that autistic people can't get dates? I have no data for this, But that has not been my experience. I know two autistic people who had girlfriends longer than me for a while. I'm not really arguing this point, Because it's a non sequitur to the rest of the debate, But I just wanted to bring that up as a side note. -----> Let's not confuse my argument. My argument is that autistic savants, People who have autism but show extraodinary ability in one area such as musical ability (intelligence, Motor coordination) but lack in most other areas struggle in dating because they lack other attributes that are necessary in dating: social skills and reading social cues, Humor, Physical attractiveness, Leadership, Deep voice, Pre-selection, Muscularity, Positive interactions with children, Financial prospects, Etc. They are not generally attractive, And as such they are less desirable choices for women in the dating and mating context. -----> "[Autism] involves multiple problems with language, Social relationnships, Emotional adjustment, Conceptualization, Hyperactivity, And learning. " (Communication Problems in Autism edited by Eric Schopler, Gary B. Mesibov)-----> "Findings support the view that individuals with characteristics of autism and related conditions do not necessarily prefer aloneness, As once assumed, But rather experience increased levels of loneliness related to lack of social skill and understanding. " Your killswitch examples are not good. Your scenario only drives the woman away because it's a "bad smell" But what about a neutral smell? What a about being indifferent instead of angry? Those guys could not have a holistic set of attributes and still get dates just as easily. -----> The point is that lack of general attractiveness in certain areas can repulse women, Which is why a holistic strategy of improving areas of attractiveness undner one's control attracts women moreso than hyper-focusing on being attractive in one area. My main point is simple. There are factors that lead to how a woman chooses their mate. However, Since attraction is a subjective thing, It is not possible to know what "the big secret" is to dating. If science knew this secret, Everybody would be bumping and grinding right now. -----> Knowledge doesn't equal results. We know that the "secret" to losing weight is to consume fewer calories than you burn, Move around, And eat nutrient dense foods that support the hormonal function of your lymph glands. But that doesn't mean that everyone should be skinny now. Because it requires energy, Money, Time, And concentrated effort to unwire bad habits and establish good habits. -----> What attracts one woman compared to the next will vary slightly, But there are many universal attraction triggers that women all respond to. In studies of muscularity, All women preferred the more muscular men and none preferred the skinnier/weaker men. (Study: Cues of upper body strength account for most of the variance in men's bodily attractiveness, Aaron Sell, Aaron W. Lukazsweski and Michael Townsley)All women preferred deeper voices for men in several studies. In a study with 150 women, Scientists found that, "A man can move himself two points higher on the attractiveness scale we used if his salary increases by a factor of 10. " Pro's points are mostly good, Thanks. Except for the fact that pro states them as proven facts, When in fact, They are probabilistic assessment. Without addressing any specific point, This assertion falls flat. I don't have to demonstrate why they are facts. But to be extra safe with this victory, I would like to point out that virtually all of science and all of human knowledge is only our current closest approximation of truth. So the more studies and metanalyses there are on a particular topic (e. G. Deeper voices being more attractive to heterosexual women) the more certain we can be that it is true. So your argument is a sham. . . . TO . . . . Pro's points are mostly goodLooks like I won over Con as well ;)