Men are always hungry for sex

I thank Jordan for his improved arguments.*Sorry for the random underlinings and ad-writing. There's adward on this comp, and I can't get rid of it. Counter-arguments On the topic of discussion “My opponent has admitted more or less that, for all intents and purposes, men do not desire sex all the time.” My opponent is playing word games. The title of the resolution is there for everyone to see. I’ve made it abundantly clear what I meant by my claim, and why it is consistent with the resolution. “One could easily question that this was Pro's original meaning.” I have quoted from that thread, specifically stating what I meant – I even used the word “subconscious”. Besides, my opponent is digressing onto what he perceives to be my argument in the past, rather than addressing my arguments here. I only have to defend my arguments here, in order to win the debate. “Her statement, quoted in the first round, said that women getting into a relationship with a man were "idiots" if they did not expect the man to pressure them for sex to the point where they may feel as if they are being "raped" (i.e., outward behavior). It was not until the absurdity of her claim was aggressively attacked that she backpedaled and stated that a man's alleged constant desire for sex is subconscious.” This whole paragraph is irrelevant, as it is my opponent’s interpretation of what I said in the thread (which isn’t accurate, but who cares? It’s not relevant to this debate). Again, I’ve made my argument here, in this debate, very clear. “She did not respond to my assertion that, by her own logic, women should also desire sex all the time…” My opponent is incessantly side-tracked with irrelevancies. We are debating whether MEN are hungry for sex all the time, not women. “However, I think it is only sportsmanlike to allow her to defend her now abridged statements…” No, can you please stick to the resolution’s topic? On "poisoning the well" My opponent had no reason to directly quote me, in order to remind of debate etiquette. Not only is the quote out of context, but it isn’t even related to the debate. Again, he could have simply put in the rules, ‘I remind my opponent not to personally attack me”. Of course, in his reminder to me to not attack him, he’s attacked me in the process, by making me out to be someone who is vicious/hateful/malicious etc. Not only is this poor conduct and fallacious, but it is also hypocritical. On the existence of asexuality as a sexual orientation by Coupon dropDown" href="../../Men-are-always-hungry-for-sex/1/"> “My opponent dismissed the existence of asexuals by stating that my source is merely a "wiki page."” Lies. I dismissed it as merely a single definition, FROM a wiki page. It would be like me arguing dragons exist because there’s a definition for them. “In order for the counter-argument to be valid, the debater mustshow why the source is not only suspect but invalid or incorrect.” WRONG. That’s a negative proof fallacy -- it’s up to the one claiming to prove the source to be valid. That’s YOUR job, Jordan. “Asexuals were most clearly distinguished from non-asexuals by their lower/absent scores on the Dyadic Sexual Desire subscale, lower scores on the Solitary Sexual Desire subscale, and lower scores on the Sexual Arousability by Coupon dropDown" href="../../Men-are-always-hungry-for-sex/1/">Scale .” “In the journal Sexualities, Kristin Scherrer published a paper titled "Coming to an Asexual Identity: Negotiating Identity, Negotiating Desire" which documents asexuality and the behavior it engenders. The paper drew upon the experience of 102 self-identified asexuals.” I had a look at these reports, and these tests involved asking people questions about their sexuality, rather than scientifically testing anything. It would be like asking someone whether they felt like they had a soul; there’s just no way he/she could know. Sure, people have varying libidos, there’s no question about that; and yes, someone could easily be cognizant of varying libido. But how could you ever be sure that you’re asexual? How could someone be sure that there is absolutely NO attraction to anything, whatsoever, rather than just very, very low attraction? I think that someone’s libido could get so low, that on the surface, you don’t feel like having sex. Freud’s work is consistent with this, and since these works are based on people’s interpretation of feelings, I think Freud’s work is more convincing, don’t you? On Freudian theory “I find it somewhat amusing that although my opponent's argument rests on the unproven and highly contested psychoanalytical models of Sigmund Freud” Sigmund Freud’s work is still very much relevant today: “There are still thousands of psychologists that guide their work by this paradigm, and there are thousands that use the projective tests, including: TAT, the RISP and the Rorschach test” [1]. “In many European countries … Freudian (and other derivative models of) psychoanalysis continue to enjoy widespread credibility and practice” [4]. “Freud's ideas have been highly important to literary criticism” [4]. “psychoanalysis … still considered to be a credible and effective method of treating mental illnesses” [5]. Freud's model of psychoanalysis is unproven By what standard of proof? Which part are you even referring to from your reference, Jordan? This assertion, backed by an unexplained reference, acts poorly as an argument. [Freud’s model] is in competition with contradictory and more modern models, such as conflict theory, ego psychology and object relations theory. Firstly, my opponent has failed to express how modern theories contradict Freud’s. He references an article that supposedly critiques Freud’s work, yet my opponent fails to explain why these critiques are relevant to this debate. Secondly, Freud’s models aren’t entirely contradictory with more modern models. There are aspects, funnily enough, that remain consistent in both, to a large extent. Sexual urges develop subconsciously (although, they can manifest in the conscious mind) through puberty [3]. All models either agree on this point, or say nothing to the contrary. Due to character limits, I’m only going to run through why one of the theories, suggested by my opponent (besides, my opponent hasn’t explained why any contradict), does not contradict Freud’s theories: Conflict theory “posits unconscious and conscious conflict among wishes (dependent, controlling, sexual, and aggressive)” [2]. With this in mind, since Conflict theory talks of unconscious (subconscious) wishes. Furthermore, there isn’t any evidence, demonstrated via Conflict theory that suggests sexual desire cannot always lay inert, albeit lessened, on occasions. This does not, if you’ll forgive me, conflict with Freud’s work, in regards to the subconscious desire for sex. The underlying sexual element, as expressed in Freud’s work, is consistent with Conflict Theory! On absolutism “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. References/Sources [1] http://www.ibuzzle.com... [2] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org... [3] Plant, T.M. (2001). “Leptin, growth hormone, and the onset of primate puberty”. The Jornal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 86 (1) [4] http://www.gradesaver.com... [5] http://www.personalityresearch.org...