The Color Blue

My opponent states that: "Testosterone is considered a male hormone but is actually an androgen (a hormone that affects tissue regeneration). It encourages bone density, lean muscle mass, sex drive, and a few other traits in both men and women. Since men have higher levels of testosterone these traits tend to be stronger in them than in women. http://en.wikipedia.org...... For this reason societal jobs were created due to natural superiority in the field of strength rather than "society's approval" or "peer pressure". Explicitly, jobs originated out of natural abilities rather than societal approval for these jobs." However, if the voters will remember, this debate is about males' preference for the color blue, NOT about natural superiority of men to women or gender roles in a society. Since this argument does not, in any way, connect back to the resolution, this argument cannot be used against me and is therefore rendered null. Further, my opponent goes on to say "It is quite clear that evolution occurs primarily do to the need to adapt and to survive. Not because members in a society approve of this job roles. These job roles are assigned simply because it betters the chance of surviving. "Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to >>>>survive<<<< ...than those with less favorable phenotypes."" However, like his previous argument, my opponent seems to have forgotten that the subject of this debate is about males preference for color, not the reasons for evolution or natural selection. Therefore, this argument does not, in anyway, help my opponent's case and cannot be used against me. This argument is rendered null. My opponent then goes on to say that: "a poll was done in 1939 , Parents magazine polled customers in a New York department store and found that 80% of shoppers preferred blue for boys and pink for girls. This may be an assumption, however it resides from a logical premise: that favorite colors did simply not change in the course of 19 years." This argument, while valid, does not show that blue is preferred by males for reasons other than peer pressure and societal influence. The poll that was done found that 80% of shoppers preferred blue for males and pink for girls. Since most shoppers are females, this shows nothing about males' preference for the color blue. It only shows society approval for the color for males. I would like to thank my opponent for furthering my point. Then my opponent continues by saying: "When we compared the colors pink/purple vs. blue, the former was more likely to elicit Affect justifications, whereas the latter was more likely to elicit Nature justifications. Affect (i.e., a focus on the subjective, internal world) is commonly associated with femininity whereas Nature (i.e., a focus on the objective, external world) is commonly associated with masculinity. 3) Affect: The child provided a specific emotion or affectively-based justification (e.g., "It makes me happy" or "It's a pretty color"). 4) Nature: The child provided a nature-based justification (e.g., "I like the color of grass")." http://findarticles.com...... This final study shows the reasoning behind the color choices in children and further backs my argument of a genetic principle for color preferences. (1) Gender-Specific or -Linked: The child provided a gender-specific (e.g., "Because it is a pretty girl color") or gender-linked justification (e.g., "Because it is like Spiderman"). (2) Personal: The child provided an individualized justification that was not clearly gender-linked (e.g., "It's the color of my wall"). However, in my opponents (3), where the child liked a color because it made them happy, reasons why the color did make them happy is probably because their parents surrounded them around that color in their childhood and seeing that color mad them feel safe. This is an excellent example of societal influence. My opponent's (1) states that the child provided a gender specific (e.g. a pretty girl color). How did the child know that the color was a GIRL color? How does the child know about Spiderman? The answer is that this all happened because of societal influence. A child was not born know what a "girl" color is or what a "boy" color is, nor does it know who Spiderman is. Finally, in my opponents (4), he stated that the child provided a justification that was individualized (e.g. it's the color of my wall) Those individualized preferences were the result of their parent's influence. Houses were not built, already painted. Instead, parents choose the color for their children's room, causing the child to like that color, thus, influencing their child. These all show societal influence. I have clearly shown that the resolved color is popular for males because of society's influence. My opponent has gotten distracted and has made arguments that were not at all related to the resolution. He has also made some very good arguments in my defense. Therefore, I urge all voters to vote Con in this debate. I thank my opponent for his time and for providing this debate. I thank voters for reading this debate.