Girls should "make the first move" more than they currently do now.

First I will elaborate on the proposition, so we can clearly understand the terms of this debate.

The phrase "make the first move" will be defined by me as:
1. Asking a person out
2. Telling a person you have feelings (romantic, do you like me check yes or no , you get the idea) for them.

NOT THE FIRST MOVE SEXUALLY, at least not in this debate. This debate will concern more with a girl proclaiming her like of the guy, rather than the social norm of the guy asking out the girl.

By taking this debate you agree that a guy asking out a girl is the social norm right now.

----------

The social norm the way it is now creates a large disadvantage for extremely shy and socially anxious guys.

"Love-shy people find it difficult to be assertive in informal situations involving potential romantic or sexual partners. For example, a heterosexual love-shy male will have trouble initiating conversations with women because of strong feelings of anxiety." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

One may have the strongest feelings they have ever felt for someone and still be too shy to proclaim this outright. It's not a matter of "growing a pair" (http://www.urbandictionary.com...), it's just very hard for some people to overcome this social anxiety and and can lead to other conditions like depression, when it could be solved by a nice girl taking the first initiative and realizing the guy may not be a social god.

I await my opponents response, and will clarify anything you do not understand .

I will be defending the status quo: where the majority of heterosexual relationships are initiated by the males.

First, I will examine the observations of my opponent.

First, he notes that extremely shy and socially anxious males can be put at a serious disadvantage compared to those who are outgoing and socially confident. Is this a bad thing, really? Smart men have an advantage compared to dumb men. Strong men have an advantage compared to weak men. This is because strong and smart are two different traits the female population at large values, at least on average. It is no different for the traits "outgoing" and "socially confident." These traits should be given an advantage, and their opposites, shy and socially anxious, should be at a disadvantage.

He then notes that love-shy people might have trouble initiating conversations. While this is true, my opponent has failed to see the female side of the spectrum. I would wager that a much higher percentage of females are "love-shy," at least when it comes to being able to ask someone out. I will go over both possible sources of love-shyness and explain why females are more likely to be love-shy.

First, it could be, at least partially, genetic. As is noted by my opponent, love-shy men have a very hard time finding a mate, and therefore are much less likely to pass on their love-shyness. However, love-shy women don't have anywhere near the same trouble finding a mate. Therefore, this love-shy gene would thrive in women, but not so much in men.

Second, it could be caused by upbringing. Since we live in a society where men are expected to ask women out, women are not taught to be the initiating force of a relationship. By the media, by their parents, etc. None of these sources teach women to be the active persuer of a relationship to the extent that men are. Therefore, it is completely reasonable that we observe many more men starting relationships than females.

More women are love-shy than men. As my opponent has proclaimed himself, it is not an issue of simply "growing a pair." Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect more women to start asking men out.

I have other things to say, but I will leave end my first rebuttal here. I ask my opponent to bring up anything he thinks I did not sufficiently address and/or any new points he has.

Thank you for accepting my debate beem0r.

"First, he notes that extremely shy and socially anxious males can be put at a serious disadvantage compared to those who are outgoing and socially confident. Is this a bad thing, really? Smart men have an advantage compared to dumb men. Strong men have an advantage compared to weak men. This is because strong and smart are two different traits the female population at large values, at least on average. It is no different for the traits "outgoing" and "socially confident." These traits should be given an advantage, and their opposites, shy and socially anxious, should be at a disadvantage."

You assume that shy and socially anxious men are weak. When in reality they, in my experience, are very strong (in character, as I assume you used the word weak in such a manner) and tend to be intellects. This can be seen in many online communities, where people get together, have intellectual discussions and debates, but also regularly complain about how they are lonely and always too shy ask a girl out. These type of communities are all over the internet and tend to be made up of some the the nicest people you will be in real life. I can personally attest to this, because I have formed many relationship with these kinds of people outside of the online community.

You also state that the female population values strong and smart traits, this is incorrect. If they did value those traits they would realize that the ones that truly tend to be nice and intelligent are in most cases shy and socially anxious, then pursue them in hopes of a relationship.

I do agree with you, some people will be advantaged, and some disadvantaged, but both parties will be benefited by the relationship between a shy guy and a female willing to initiate a relationship. I will discuss these benefits later.

"First, it could be, at least partially, genetic. As is noted by my opponent, love-shy men have a very hard time finding a mate, and therefore are much less likely to pass on their love-shyness. However, love-shy women don't have anywhere near the same trouble finding a mate. Therefore, this love-shy gene would thrive in women, but not so much in men."

Love-shyness as defined by my source in the outline of the debate, only applies to men. In his study, psychologist Brian G. Gilmartin, came the the following conclusion about women who may suffer from similar love-shyness.

"The very shy young woman is no less likely to date and to marry than is the self-confident woman, non-shy woman . . . . In essence, even very shy women marry. Love-shy men cannot and do not marry irrespective of how strong their desires might be . . . ."

This is allowed by the social norm now, as you said, a love-shy woman does not have to pursue a relationship as they are supposed to come to her.

You state that love-shyness is genetic, when in fact it is most likely a result of untreated depression, traumatic events in the person's past, fear of rejection, and even the need for intellectuals to over think themselves out of a situation, like asking a girl out. (http://www.shynessonline.com...) It could possibly be passed on but not in the sense you speak of, but rather by social situations common in a specific family.

"Second, it could be caused by upbringing. Since we live in a society where men are expected to ask women out, women are not taught to be the initiating force of a relationship. By the media, by their parents, etc. None of these sources teach women to be the active pursuer of a relationship to the extent that men are. Therefore, it is completely reasonable that we observe many more men starting relationships than females."

In the proposition of the debate I said that women should "make the first move" more than they currently do. Your argument here tells why they do not pursue the first move but does nothing to say why they shouldn't other that that it is the social norm. Kind of circular reasoning, "women should stick to the social norm because it is the social norm." We are debating on whether or not it should change.

Now,as I promised, here are some benefits women would receive if they began to pursue love-shy men more than they currently do.

1) Women would be more likely to be in long term relationships as once a love-shy person gets with someone, it is of the utmost importance to them hold onto her. They know they are very lucky and will treat their loved one much better and value them more than someone who could easily hit the clubs and pick up women if he needed to, resulting in a longer relationship.

2) As you stated before, women like the strong and smart traits, they would most likely get both of these in a love-shy person as they tend to be very romantic and intellectual, just unable to openly express their feelings. With some work a girl could help the love-shy person break out of their shell, getting much more than what they could from some social stud.

I'm glad you chose to take up this debate, and from your response I know I will gain much even if I lose, which I hope not to. You're much better than the debater in my first debate.

Response mode, activate!
_____________________________________
RESPONSE TO: "You assume that shy and socially anxious men are weak.", related statements

My point has simply been missed here. Perhaps it wasn't the clearest choice of wording. I will attempt to restate my point to some extent:

When it comes to finding a mate, and all other traits held constant...
Smart men have an advantage over dumb men.
Strong men have an advantage over weak men.
Confident men have an advantage over shy men.

I was simply showing that it isn't any more unfair to the shy man than it is to the dumb or weak man. I was meaning weak physically, but it and strong could be used for any facet of a person, I suppose.
_____________________________________
RESPONSE TO: That love-shy guys tend to be nice, intelligent, etc. and any statements that rely on this assertion.

This is an assertion, nothing more. My opponent fails to back this statement up, except for saying "I can personally attest to this, because I have formed many relationship with these kinds of people outside of the online community."

However, this is not enough warranting to hold that premise up. First off, it's an anecdote. Just because you've had an experience that seems to lead to X does not mean the bigger picture follows suit. What I mean by this is that my opponent's observations about certain acquaintances of his simply cannot be used as if they were observations about the entire group.
Also, there is the possibility that my opponent has fabricated this anecdote to further his case. It may seem unlikely, but it's impossible for us to tell. this is another reason why purely anecdotal evidence will not cut it here.

How bout this.
I know a lot of love shy guys, and from my experience, they tend to be psychopathic, inconsiderate, weak, dumb, ugly, smelly, dirty, and they're cruel to animals.
Hopefully ye get what I mean.

However, this point can still be substantiated if my opponent puts forward a logical line of reasoning showing WHY love-shy men would tend to be more X, Y, and Z.
_____________________________________
RESPONSE TO: "both parties will be benefited by the relationship between a shy guy and a female willing to initiate a relationship."

If a woman is willing to initiate a relationship and wants to, she already does it. It's not common.
_____________________________________
RESPONSE TO: That love-shy only applies to men in this debate

It applies to both genders, and there has not been anything limiting it to only men. I agree that it does not have the same negative effects (not getting a partner) for females as it does for males. This is because many males are confident and will ask out a love-shy girl, where the chances of the opposite are slimmer. This point was simply to show that it is likely that these females you're urging to start asking out guys _cannot_ do so, at least within the parameters of this debate. As my opponent noted in round 1, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for a love-shy person to ask someone out.

The point lies in the fact that many women are love-shy, not that it causes them any harm.
_____________________________________
RESPONSE TO: "Your argument here tells why they do not pursue the first move but does nothing to say why they shouldn't other that that it is the social norm. Kind of circular reasoning, "women should stick to the social norm because it is the social norm." We are debating on whether or not it should change."

No, my argument tells why many women are in fact love-shy. In this debate, my opponent has noted that a love-shy person cannot simply ask a person out; it isn't a matter of "growing a pair." Therefore, my opponent's resolution is much like "Crippled people should walk to the store more often than they do." Perhaps they should... if they could. I am arguing that this abundance of love-shy women should not ask men out more often for the same reason my opponent isn't putting the burden of fixing their own problems on the love-shy men.
_____________________________________
RESPONSE TO: "Women would be more likely to be in long term relationships as once a love-shy person gets with someone, it is of the utmost importance to them hold onto her. They know they are very lucky and will treat their loved one much better and value them more than someone who could easily hit the clubs and pick up women if he needed to, resulting in a longer relationship."

So the relationships will stay together simply because he doesn't think he can get any better? While this is likely true, we must consider that many women would see this as devaluing their relationship. I know I would, if I was a woman. I, as I think most people do, prefer for people to be in a relationship with me because of how much they care about me, etc., not because they can't get anyone else. Relationships like that should NOT last very long, and as my opponent has shown, they would if women started asking out love-shy men.
_____________________________________
RESPONSE TO: "As you stated before, women like the strong and smart traits, they would most likely get both of these in a love-shy person as they tend to be very romantic and intellectual, just unable to openly express their feelings. With some work a girl could help the love-shy person break out of their shell, getting much more than what they could from some social stud."

It has not been shown that love-shy people tend to be smarter, more romantic, stronger, etc.
_____________________________________
MY OFFENSE:

First, I would like to drop one of my arguments. This is the "it could be partially genetic" argument. It's not only an irrelevant point now, but my opponent has provided a source with at least some amount of merit to discredit this. I was unsure whether it was nature or nurture, so I initially used both points, but this is no longer needed.

Now let's take the perspective of a female here. We're not in a relationship and there's this guy we like. Unfortunately, he's really shy, and it seems he won't ask us out. There are 2 things we could do here: ask him out, or not.

i] First, we might ask him out, or let him know that we like him romantically. This would be "making the first move." Very few women do this. Why? That is the question we must now examine.

ii] Second, we might not ask him out. What are our reasons for this?

:: a] We do not want to ask him out. Regardless of our reason for this, we should not ask him out if this is the case, since people should not do things they don't want to do.
:: b] We are unable to ask him out. Regardless of our reason for this, we should not ask him out if this is the case, since we're unable to. Should requires a possibility.

These are the reasons why women do not ask out men. Every woman who does not ask out a guy has one of these reasons. Since these reasons are valid, and no other decision should be made in these cases, women should NOT make the first move more than they currently do. Women's reasons for not asking men out are justified and valid, and therefore I uphold the status quo.

Now I will go over what I expect from Pro. I expect some kind of warranting for the "shy guys are more X" argument. I expect a rebuttal to the above argument. I expect some line of reasoning as to why love-shy applies only to males, if ye still wish to assert this.

I look forward to the rest of the debate ;]

My opponent has forfeited, thus he has conceded the debate. I extend all my arguments thus far. Thanks for the debate, even with a forfeited round it was more enjoyable than most.