Alyssa

A lot of these debates are written with contemporary considerations that often change over months. For example, a debate on the Iran war will be written today when there is uncertainty, but if you allow votes 5 months out from when the debate was made, and if the IRGC was deposed by its own people by that time, then the votes will be extremely biased.

Why would that matter? Voters shouldn't be voting using information not presented within the debate to begin with, so future events months or years down the line wouldn't be relevant.

I'm gonna narrow the discussion a little because if I respond to everything I'm actually going to get upset at how intentionally obtuse you're being and need to step away.

You simply can't have excluding standards without excluding anyone.

Let's start pretty slowly here. Why is it a bad thing that women have preferences towards the men they date?

If you want to answer "because that's exclusionary", have you considered that maybe, just maybe, there's a reason women have those preferences? Have you also considered that maybe, just maybe, those reasons could be valid?

Also, the cognitive dissonance in this post is crazy.

And again, I am not a misogynist. (Questionable)

I think women should have a choice in life to live as they want. (Cool)

I just see them only being useful to society as baby factories. (Extremely misogynistic)

But if a woman doesn't want to be a mother, fine, she can get education instead or even a job. (Cool)

It is of course bad for society when women choose to stop being baby factories (Extremely misogynistic), but I can't really say society itself is any good, so maybe women who refuse to be mothers are correct. (Just weird)

I'm gonna have an aneurism...

It's not really a false dichotomy.

If there are 10 women and 10 men, either each woman gets one man, or someone is left alone.

That's literally not how the world works. Polyamory exists. LGTBQ+ couples exist. Regardless of how big or small the percentage is, the fact that there are more choices than just the two you are presenting means that your argument is relying on a false dichotomy.

You spam a bunch of links which have no any relevance to my argument. I don't see a point in responding to them.

You LITERALLY SAID in post #113, that

Yeah, but if you wait until 30, you will be lonely until 30, and so will your potential boyfriend.

And older women over 30 actually also experience a lot of loneliness because they expired.

I provided you with multiple studies that show that people who are single, especially women and double-especially older women, are likely single because they want to be. No loneliness present. But sure, keep shifting the goalposts.

The only way not to go to prison when dating under 18 is if you don't do anything sexual

That's...somehow even more disturbing. Are you willing to go on record saying that a romantic relationship between someone who is over 18 and someone who is under 18 is socially acceptable so long as it's asexual?

Why am I entertaining this?

Irrelevant small percentage of society.

Let me quote you again real fast:

So yes, in society without polygamy, women can either accept all men or they can remain single.

Emphasis my own.

The entire premise is resting on a false dichotomy. Not to mention it's relying on a world view that isn't actually reflective of reality.

Yeah, but if you wait until 30, you will be lonely until 30, and so will your potential boyfriend.

And older women over 30 actually also experience a lot of loneliness because they expired.

In 2019, the Pew Research Center found that among a national U.S. sample of solo single people (not married, not cohabiting, and not in a committed romantic relationship), half were not interested in a romantic relationship or even a date. When they conducted a similar survey in 2022, the percentage had increased a bit: 56 percent were just not interested.

Which is consistent across multiple studies.

Furthermore, Among those who were never married, the women were again more likely to say they were uninterested in dating or romantic relationships than the men

As well as For both the never-married and previously married women, the older solo singles were even less likely to be interested in romance than the younger ones.

Performance itself doesnt matter. Men dont actually prefer woman doing anything. In fact, its the looks which matter. Actions dont matter, not even sexual actions.

Great way to tell me that you're only interaction with actual romantic relationships is looking at porn without telling me that you're only interaction with actual romantic relationships is looking at porn.

Actually, that can't be true either - women do things in porn. So this is actually just coming from nowhere? Lil bro, go outside and touch grass.

And I'll address the most concerning comment, as well.

I personally wouldnt date woman over age 25 because thats just too old

Okay, Leo. I'd ask you what the youngest you'd date, but I'm not sure I want to know the answer to that.

Not to mention your entire argument excludes the whole concept of LGBTQ+ relationships.

Lmfao.

But women have a further disadvantage because they prefer older men, and men generally prefer women under the age 25.

In many nations, a trend can be observed of people waiting longer until they marry. In such countries as Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, Ireland, and Estonia, the average marriage age is over 30.

In countries where the average age of the first marriage isn’t yet 30, it seems to be quickly approaching that number. In Russia, North Macedonia, Serbia, Romania, Croatia, and Montenegro, the age at first marriage is between 26 and 29.

This data is factored by both gender and country. I think women over the age of 25 are doing just fine.

inb4 "not talking about marriage, just physical attraction" - I'd link you the required pages that show that older women lovers are eating good, but I'd get banned so fast it's not even funny.

Well to be blunt let me compare it to chess again. If I decide to train and learn new strategies and moves playing against an AI or using an AI to recommend better moves I am growing and learning and its a positive.

Now if I bring that exact same tool to a Chess tournament its a disgusting level of cheating. Make sense how these things are not the same?

This site is so much more akin to your first example than your second example. A chess tournament often has real and tangible stakes involved. If you think that 'rating points' are equivalent stakes, then I'd recommend fresh air and grass touching.

I'm sure there are plenty of bears out there who would be happy to comfort you in your distress. It's not hard to find them, just go to grindr.

I wouldnt call myself a misogynist. I just think [insert super misogynistic statement].

Lmao, this has got to be satire.

Well certainly nothing wrong with good ol' fashion oration

Couldn't have said it better myself xD aaaaaand we leave that there and never pick this line of conversation up again.

But an old fart that regularly espouses the inevitability of the future and material evolution.

This you?

I'll let him correct me if I'm wrong, but the people who more or less ran DART (if I remember right not on the technical end but on most/all others) decided to abandon it and make this.

And me being so old, it tears me up to see younger techno addicts tearing up in response to algorithmic contrivances

I always hated this line of thought. It's all just storytelling. Video games, tv shows, movies, books, plays, good ol' fashion oration - just different mediums for the same thing. You can have preferences of the medium of choice - that's totally valid, but trying to say that certain mediums are invalid is just weird*.

*If that's not what you were implying then I apologize.

Like, there are legitimate reasons to not like AI (the environmental cost being the easy one to point out), but saying that using it as a research tool is bad is pretty stupid. At that rate we might as well outlaw the use of Google and libraries.

his is in no way the same as me dumping my opponents argument into a LLM and it spitting out the counter point of inflation that I had never thought of.

1. No one's saying you have to use things that AI gives you. Half the time it's bunk anyway. That's the entire point of using it as a jumping off point for your own independent research.
2. I mean, you're saying that this is a bad thing and I'm saying "why is this bad?". If I ask an AI about a topic and it gives me a talking point I hadn't considered before, doesn't that just give me another avenue of research I can look into to expand my understanding of the topic, regardless of if I decide to use the argument or not? I'm not understanding the negative here.

but to AI girls, I am God

The bar is literally in the Mariana Trench. Would you like applause for managing to not trip over it?

unless you are good looking, which I am.

Holy fuck this thread is a goldmine.

To address the actual complaint about AI, though, I don't particularly care. AI is a tool, just like any other tool that humans have at their disposal. It's up to the person using the tool to make it effective. A lot of the arguments feel akin to the old "you shouldn't use wikipedia for research" line of reasoning. Like sure, wikipedia can be wrong a lot of the time, but it usually provides ideas/sources for you to get a better starting point to dive into actual research. AI, from my experience, feels really similar, except the level of stupidity at the moment is pretty damn high.

there is a difference using tools to grab data for your arguments vs using tools that give you talking points.

What is the difference, from your perspective? From my POV, your sources make your arguments. An example would be I could say that capital punishment reduces crime rates, but without any kind of source backing me up, the argument itself is just an assertion. So I'm not sure what the difference between using AI to find sources vs. using AI to make arguments is.

Interesting. A quick google search showed me that there's a World Chess Championship and a Women's World Chess Championship, though. What tournament are you referring to specifically?

Aren't chess tournaments separated by gender typically? I don't know much about the chess world other than the names of a few prolific modern players.

IQ doesnt really mean anything.

My IQ is about 140.

Checks. Out.

Honestly SatanLucy is becoming my favorite shit poster. It's a solid laugh every time. 10/10

Oh honey, I've been a gamer for almost 20 years now. xD

LMAO

I'm not sure whether I find this thread more sad or more hilarious. It's definitely a mixture of the two.

Oh god...

In no particular order of how badly I ended up bawling:

Cyberpunk 2077 (specifically the ending where V offs themselves)

Mass Effect 1-3 (just multiple points)

Kingdom Hearts 1-2

Masquerada: Songs and Shadows (fucking fantastic game)

Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor (the opening scene where Talion's entire family gets killed in front of him. Fuck...)

Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous (when Lann dies... T_T)

RDR2 for sure

Telltale's The Walking Dead 1-2 (if you don't go through an entire box of tissues playing those games then idk if I can call you human)

and probably others that I can't remember after briefly scanning my steam library.

Helldivers is fine. I haven't played it in a hot minute, but when I did playing with randoms was usually fine.

Survival games are great. The Long Dark was kinda fun but I kinda lost the plot pretty quickly and it got boring.

Lowkey my favorite is Stranded Deep. It's buggy as hell in a lot of places and the plot, while it technically exists, isn't super fleshed out or important, but it's just got a good basis in the genre - crash landed on an island, now you gotta find resources to build yourself a shelter and try to survive/eventually escape. Bonus points if you manage to find the spots on the randomly generated maps to hunt sea monsters get brutally killed by sea monsters.

Hi! I'm Alyssa (she/her). Good to see online debating still alive in this day and age.

I'm 30 years old, currently living in San Francisco. I have a long history of debating, both in high school and online. There's actually a lot of names here I recognize from the past. I was fairly active on sites like DDO and DebateArt (to a bit of a lesser extent). No, my user here is not the same as my users on there. Mostly to tease the old farts like me who remember those days :3

Probably just gonna be around here and there. Feel free to message me and lets chat!