Only issue here is that you wouldn't want to disincentivise coming clean like this. She likely deserves it, but if she is put to death for removing the need for an investigation then you'll start needing a whole lot more investigations in the future.
I think he's making a point about difficulty, not winning/losing. Anyone can let goals in, scoring them (depending on quality of goalie) is more deserving of admiration, or at least less deserving of negative judgment.
Kids don't have to buy loot crates but they do because of predatory business practices. I wouldn't do it if I were a woman because I have morals and see that it is a cheap, dirty way to earn cash, but we clearly disagree and that's okay.
She's trying to use her holes to trick gullible, lonely men into giving her money for something that is freely available. That isn't using her gender as an (unethical) social advantage?
The crazy thing is that despite all these privileges that women (at least in the Western world) get just by being at least average looking, I'd still pick being male eleven times out of ten.
Here's a debating tip: try not to completely twist the other person's arguments in such an obvious manner, it really hurts your position and makes you look like a tactless fool with no recourse. It's impossible to adjust for morals and upbringing so randomly taking two girls, one of whom is attractive and the other isn't (by conventional standards) the hot one clearly has a wider net to cast and therefore more options for sex with guys she's attracted to. Your anecdotal evidence has zero relevan…
No, you really couldn't. You have a remarkably poor ability to construct an argument. A hot, flexible cheerleader is always going to have the chance to have more sex than a girl who fits into none of those criteria. More sex = more chance of pregnancy.
