The Instigator
Tmdog3758
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Debate_King1475
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Banning beauty contests

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Tmdog3758
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2014 Category: Fashion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,426 times Debate No: 63093
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Tmdog3758

Pro

Nfl rules appy. Keep it clean. Have fun! Will give a website link to nfl rules page 9 if needed.
Debate_King1475

Con

I accept. Bring it on!!! :)
Debate Round No. 1
Tmdog3758

Pro

61% of the world agrees with me in the fact of we could ban beauty contests. Let's see what they have to say.
"Must be banned Beauty contests must be banned because it lowers girls and woman's self-esteem and confidence when they don't win. It also makes women and girls believe that beauty is the most important thing ever when really your personality is what is most important!!!So that is why beauty contests without a doubt must be banned!"
"Beauty contests should be banned Beauty contests warp the minds of children, teens and adults alike that there is a certain criteria like being 'thin' and having, pardon my French, 'big boobs'.
Boys and men panting after them at the beck and call is now a sign that they are 'beautiful and desirable'.
We see women, especially those of Asian origin undergoing several forms of plastic surgery to achieve the stature of their Western counterparts: like the removal of their calf muscles for slimmer thighs; usage of dyes, bleaches, hot irons that cause hair loss for their hair; inorganic make up, especially eye-makeup which is primarily composed of carbon.
At least women of today no longer use lead-based powder to improve their complexion the way the Ancient Greeks did, at least, not any that I know of ."
"Beauty should never be the main thing we judge a woman by. Beauty is a nice extra if you have it but if you don't it shouldn't invalidate your intellect, your personality, or your achievements.
Pageants/contests like this only focus on the looks of a girl/woman, basically telling them and others that their main if not only worth is in their appearance and that they should seek validation based on this from other people, rather than doing so to please themselves first."
"Judging anybody by appearance alone is terrible These pageants teach girls that their main if not only worth is in their appearance, and that any effort they put into their appearance is first and foremost for the purpose of others happiness and that they should seek validation from others based upon this. Beauty is nice but it isn't a patch on and can never replace nor stand substitute for intellect and personality. The intellect and personality should be what we judge girls and women on. The beauty of these girls and women is a side issue, a nice extra if they have it, but if they don't it shouldn't invalidate any of their other great qualities or achievements. And so beauty should never be the main focal point in a competition of any kind."

The world of beauty queens and pageants was in the hot seat last week, and not just because of the racist online comments hurled at Nina Davuluri after she became the first woman of Indian descent to be named Miss America.
In France, legislators moved to ban child beauty pageants on the grounds that they promote the "hyper-sexualization" of minors. A measure even proposes jail time and a fine for violators " including parents and organizers " who sponsor or encourage "access to these competitions" for anyone under age 16, the Associated Press reported.
The French Senate approved the bill, but it must be passed by a lower house of parliament before becoming law.
According to The Guardian, the attention to the "Mini-Miss" beauty pageants was prompted by debates over a 2010 photo spread in French Vogue featuring a 10-year-old girl in heavy makeup, high-heeled shoes and tight clothes and pouting provocatively.
Such a ban wouldn't fly in the USA, says sociologist Hilary Levey Friedman, a research associate at the Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and author of the new book Playing to Win: Raising Children in a Competitive Culture.
"Historically and legally, our system defers to parents to make the right decision for their child," she says. "We see the family as more of a private entity."
Karen Kataline, a mental health professional near Denver who participated in child pageants in the 1960s, says she understands the motivation to ban the competitions, but doesn't think that's the answer. The problem "is not just the pageants, it's the parents" who support and encourage the sexualization of their children, says Kataline, author of the memoir FATLASH! Food Police & the Fear of Thin " A Cautionary Tale.
"I'm not against children singing and dancing on stage, but you want them to sing and dance and perform in age-appropriate ways," she says. "Today, we've pushed the envelope to ridiculous degrees."
The proposed penalties of up to two years in prison and $40,000 in fines "seem a bit extreme" but the concerns are certainly legitimate, says Martina Cartwright, an adjunct faculty member at the University of Arizona. Her research on child pageants was published last year in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
A task force of the American Psychological Association noted that "girls who are sexualized early will tend to gather their self-worth as an adult based on their appearance," says Cartwright. And there's also the issue of certain adults who "make the assumption that the girls have the ability to make adult decisions just based on the way they look rather than their actual age."
She doubts, however, that a ban will adequately address the issue of girls and women "being judged solely on appearance, and the idea that self-worth is only based on how they look."
As seen on the hit TLC reality show Toddlers & Tiaras, and its spin-off, Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, child beauty pageants put a premium on appearance. And in the case of so-called "high-glitz" pageants it's an appearance that requires girls to dress up and perform like pint-size adults, complete with fake hair, spray tans, full makeup, ornate costumes and even artificial teeth (known as flippers).
Glitz pageants are a multibillion-dollar business now, having exploded since Toddlers & Tiaras came on in 2009, says Cartwright, a registered dietitian who started researching pageants as a result of her work with young performers and athletes.
The average total cost of participating in a single competition, according to Cartwright's research: $3,000 to $5,000.
Read more @ http://www.usatoday.com...
Debate_King1475

Con

YOU PLAGIARIZED PARTS OF YOUR ARGUMENT FROM http://www.usatoday.com...

PEOPLE WHO ARE VOTING, LOOK INTO HIS ARGUMENT. I BET HE PLAGIARIZED OTHER STUFF

I will try and be polite when critisizing you. There are quite a few things, which are incorrect and invalid about your argument and you should never use USA TODAY as your evidence for a political issue because the people of USA TODAY write WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR. So here are a list of things I found that

1. "Karen Kataline, a mental health professional near Denver who participated in child pageants in the 1960s, says she understands the motivation to ban the competitions, but doesn't think that's the answer. The problem "is not just the pageants, it's the parents" who support and encourage the sexualization of their children, says Kataline, author of the memoir FATLASH! Food Police & the Fear of Thin " A Cautionary Tale." This quote literally says, "she understands the motivation to ban the competitions, but doesn't think that is the answer." YOUR DEFENSE LITERALLY SAYS THAT BANNING CHILD BEAUTY PAGEANTS IS NOT THE ANSWER

2. "The proposed penalties of up to two years in prison and $40,000 in fines "seem a bit extreme" I am quoting FROM YOUR OWN EVIDENCE that banning beauty pageants would be difficult to enforce.

2. "It also makes women and girls believe that beauty is the most important thing ever when really your personality is what is most important!!!So that is why beauty contests without a doubt must be banned!" This is an opinion because what is your justification that personality is more important than good looks. This is subjective evidence, which may apply to more people, but that does not mean that you should ban it from those whose lives revolve around it. Just because a person dislikes what people do to themselves in beauty pageants does not mean you have to ban it and ruin a person's career.

3. You are saying that people going out of their way to make themselves attractive is a bad thing. It is actually a good thing because it encourages people to make themselves look more attractive and more likely to reproduce AKA EVOLUTION. The promotion of increasing your chances of reproducing is a good thing because it allows humans to have a greater chance of survival.

4. "Beauty contests must be banned because it lowers girls and woman's self-esteem and confidence when they don't win." According to this logic, anything that could lower your self-esteem through losing should be banned such as sports and the presidential election. That does not make any sense.

This whole thing only shows that beauty pageants are not looked highly upon, but that does not mean that you should ban them. Banning them would deprive people of jobs and a career and the only reason for banning it that you don't like it. I have a solution for those who do not like it. DON'T WATCH IT
Debate Round No. 2
Tmdog3758

Pro

Here is a question. How am I plagiarizing when I gave quotation marks and a link to the source hence giving them full credit to the words?
1: Your person is a mental health pro. They should know then they and everyone else knows when someone looses that makes people think they aren't good enough.
"The world of beauty pageants may seem all fancy and fun - the glamorous girls, the pretty dresses, the shining tiaras - but the truth, it isn't. In fact, it's far from it. The consequences of pageants can be very harsh on every participant, but with children, it's much worse. Sure, the girls may seem like they're having a blast, getting to be a princess for a while, but beauty pageants actually have a huge negative impact on girls' minds, and can cause problems throughout their lives."
http://www.parenthood360.com...

2A: The resource said the punishment is a bit extreme. They did not say it would be hard to enforce.

2B: Parents are often responsible for the participation of girls in the competitions, and even sometimes influence the girls" behavior. The experience parents have with beauty contests is the reason why they expose their children to them. In some cases, it is just a matter of a dream they did not have and are living it vicariously through their daughters. Some moms on lower socioeconomic levels think competition is healthy, others claim that they put their children into beauty contests so they can meet others.
http://merciad.mercyhurst.edu...

3: Girls looking attractive is fine. The problem here though is beauty contest. Plus yes we could survive, but there is another problem with your statement. We are running out of space.
The global population is growing at a faster rate than ever before. But can our planet sustain seven billion people? Some politicians and experts are rethinking our current economic and social models.
There will be nine billion people by 2050
By the end of October, a baby will be born somewhere on this planet that will, according to United Nations estimates, make the global population add up to seven billion.
Experts like to call our population growth a "population explosion." In the last 200 years, the growth rate has been the fastest in the history of humankind. By 2050, the global population is expected to exceed 9.1 billion.
According to the UN, every individual is born with unalienable rights: the right to the protection of his or her dignity, a right to food and water, education, health and housing. Most individuals are likely to dream of material wealth and well-being, based on a Western lifestyle.
India is soon to be the world's most populous country
But is the planet actually able to support this Western model? "The typical US-American or European lifestyle is not sustainable," says Ernst Ulrich von Weizs"cker, German environmental expert and member of the World Future Council. If the world continues along its current growth part, he is convinced "we would need three planets."
Limited resources
According to UN predictions, India is set to overtake China as the country with the largest population. At the same time, population figures in industrialized countries are shrinking. Industrialized societies and, increasingly, densely populated emerging economies have the highest consumption rate of resources, be it food, water, earth, fossil fuels or precious metals.
Ralf F"cks of the Green party believes that the fossil era, based on consumption of fossil resources, is no longer sustainable. Neither the current energy nor the transport system can be reproduced at the global level, he says.
And then there's climate change
Developing nations are at risk of climate-related disasters
There are also growing concerns that climate change may lead to average temperatures rising to around four degrees Celsius. Should these concerns become reality, then - according to the United Nations Development Program - some 330 million people would be faced with devastating floods and forced to leave their homes. In Bangladesh alone some 70 million people are likely to be affected.
At the same time, many of the world"s regions may soon become too arid to sustain farming, adding further pressure on global resources, drinking water, food and land.
Limited resources and climate change jar with the current ideas of development based on the assumptions of limitless growth, says von Weizs"cker. He calls such assumptions "absurd," and does not expect the much-promised development through global, liberalized markets to do much to help.
On the contrary, the scientist believes, "the financial crisis of 2008 proved that the almost religious belief in the markets" creative power was devastatingly wrong. Markets are able to create an incredible amount of damage."
http://www.dw.de...

4: yes, but those people make themselves healthier in the process of getting better. Not in beauty contests. William Pinsof, a psychologist, says that '"Being a little Barbie doll says your body has to be a certain way and your hair has to be a certain way. In girls particularly, this can unleash a whole complex of destructive self-experiences that can lead to eating disorders and all kinds of body distortions in terms of body image"'
http://beautypageantsze.weebly.com...
Debate_King1475

Con

Sorry for the communication error. What I meant to say is you are using a website word for word and giving them credit and you are having me argue with a website and you had no part in publishing the article. You are just regurgitating facts and you are not using your own brain to think for yourself. Alright, let's get started.
1. You stated, "Your person is a mental health pro. They should know then they and everyone else knows when someone looses that makes people think they aren't good enough." I was directly quoting from your copy and pasted article. Also, if the girls are choosing to be in the beauty pageants, then why are you stopping them. It is there choice and it is not directly impacting your life. It impacts your life indirectly so slightly because you make it seem as though all girls are trying to become beauty pageant queens. However, the majority of people in the world are normal people. Their lives are mostly free from beauty pageants and their impact and they are content. However, those people may have high expectations for their own personal beauty, but beauty is evolving and people are simply trying to compete with the need to feel beautiful and better about themselves. Why do you care so much? You are not required to be in a child beauty pageant. Plus, beauty standards would be present in the world regardless of whether there are pageants or not. It is just juan nature.
2. It would be hard to enforce banning beauty pageants if they were to be banned, which you said in the quote, "The resource said the punishment is a bit extreme. They did not say it would be hard to enforce." If it is so easy to reinforce, then give me one good and ethical way that you can reinforce it. They are difficult to reinforce because they are committing no crime but rather are only offending a select group of people.
3. Beauty pageant should not get banned to save the world's population. How in anyway will that significantly affect the population of the earth? If we want to control the population, then we could be putting more people on birth control and encourage parents to have two or less children. You are getting completely off topic and you are not explaining how this relates to beauty pageants. You need to not regurgitate facts that you hear online and make educated claims about what you are saying.
4. If turning into a Barbie makes the girl feel good about herself, who are you to stop her? If it gives her live a form of purpose and a form of happiness then why is it necessary to ban it? You do not have to be a beauty pageant contestant so let those who want to enter a beauty pageant, enter and make themselves feel better.

Also, I have one question for you

How will banning beauty pageants solve anything?
There will still be beauty standards and people will be competing to look more beautiful. Over time people will go greater distances to make themselves more beautiful. By banning beauty pageant, something else will take its place and your attempt to ban beauty pageants will be useless.
Debate Round No. 3
Tmdog3758

Pro

Ok for this last round I am doing nothing, but using my brain. Let's begin the final round.

1: I care about people. I don't like to see people hurt themselves because they are not good enough. Give whatever money I have to those in need. I also help people when needed. I just don't like the fact that adults and children could hurt themselves just because they think they are not good enough. Just thinking I could save at least 1 life by banning beauty contests is a good enough reason for me to do this.

2: The NCIS could have no problem finding out when and where a beauty contest is. Plus sometimes girls in those pageants break a few laws. So they find them and stop it.

3: I am not getting off topic at all. Quoting from round 2 of your own words, "The promotion of increasing your chances of reproducing is a good thing because it allows humans to have a greater chance of survival." We are currently running out of room. Then you come in and say in round 3, "If we want to control the population, then we could be putting more people on birth control and encourage parents to have two or less children. You are getting completely off topic and you are not explaining how this relates to beauty pageants. You need to not regurgitate facts that you hear online and make educated claims about what you are saying." So the fact remains that I am not off topic whereas, you re the one who brought up the increase in survival. First you say let's have more people because of survival, and now you are saying birth control so in a way you are contradicting your own words.

4: q: If turning into a Barbie makes the girl feel good about herself, who are you to stop her?
A: I am to stop her because if not me, she could never win and she could kill herself. I am not letting that happen.
Q: If it gives her live a form of purpose and a form of happiness then why is it necessary to ban it?
A: it only gives the winner a form of happiness. I rather ban it and make 1 person unhappy, whereas we could not ban it and make a group of girls/women unhappy.
Q: How will banning beauty pageants solve anything?
A: I rather ban beauty contest because beauty contests won't get you anywhere in life. Really it pretty much won't. Become athletic or smart and that might get you somewhere. Don't get hooked up on what you wear and look like, because deep down someone will like you for who you are.
Banning beauty contests will be worth it knowing I saved at least 1 person from dying or doing something horrible to themselves.
Debate_King1475

Con

"I care about people. I don't like to see people hurt themselves because they are not good enough." You are hypocritical. You are trying to take an interest in people but you are saying they are not good enough. Who are you to tell them how to live their life? They can do whatever they want. They live in America, a country where you can do that.

"The NCIS could have no problem finding out when and where a beauty contest is. Plus sometimes girls in those pageants break a few laws. So they find them and stop it." That is what the romans said when they were trying to ban christianity but they failed. There are ways around this.

"I am not getting off topic at all." That is just a lie, but for the sake of arguing I will rebuttal it. "The promotion of increasing your chances of reproducing is a good thing because it allows humans to have a greater chance of survival." That is a good thing because we are not oppressing our human instinct of having sex, which gives the allusion of reproducing, even though there are ways to avoid reproducing. And we need to put people on birth control because there are too many people on the earth already and we need to cut the population down.

"I am to stop her because if not me, she could never win and she could kill herself." Really? You want to stop her because she could kill herself. So should I stop skydiving because someone could get killed? YOU ARE NOT THE LITTLE GIRL!!! WHY ARE YOU STOPPING HER FROM DOING WHAT SHE WANTS TO DO!!

" I rather ban beauty contest because beauty contests won't get you anywhere in life. " BEAUTY PAGEANT IS THERE LIFE!! By banning it you are taking it away!!

"it only gives the winner a form of happiness. I rather ban it and make 1 person unhappy, whereas we could not ban it and make a group of girls/women unhappy." YOU WOULD MAKE EVERYONE UNHAPPY. Don't you get it? You are taking away their career. I understand you have good intentions but that is not right. What right do you have to stop them because I feel like it?

You are trying to help, which is why instead of banning it, we could educate people why it is not good. Don't take a girl's right to choose what she wants to do when she grows up.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Suggestion: Next time con, stick to one argument or the other. Don't try balancing everything. It'll only destroy your case.
Also, pro, I applaud you for your excellently worded final round. It was nice to see you say everything in your own words. Although it may have been a little over-board.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
I meant to say *although con....cases, most of his arg's....other.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
RFD conclusion
Con has made very few good cases. Most of his arguments contradict each other. Although I doubted pro's round 2 heavily-dependent-on-sources and very subjective argument, con defeats himself with the help of a little push from pro.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
RFD part 4
Okay, I lied, that was not the last part. This is the last part.
Going back to the argument about population because I was kind of confused about it and can't be sure who REALLY won this argument in contrast to just mere-claims. So, this point is bought up originally by CON. He appeals to the likelihood of EVOLUTION due to the beauty contests and says reproduction is a good thing. (Aha, so this IS a contrast to what he said in the final round!)
Pro has really good arguments that manage to rebut that say that in fact reproduction, especially in modern day, has turned into OVER reproduction.

Con makes a good point that the population in fact won't be that significantly changed by the banning of beauty pageants. (But this also turns over his own point, as evolution won't be more likely because he admitted there was barely an effect). Pro notes the turn-over and uses it to his advantage and notes how contradictory it is. Con tries concluded with the inference that "sex is good because it reproduces" but then makes a very dumb-dumb statement that ruins this case.... "And we need to put people on birth control....". Thus it is concluded that this argument is lost in con's case.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
RFD part 3 (last part)
Pro retracts his mistakes by using pure logic. Such a master and contrast turn-over. You don't have to be all brains and no help, pro. But yeah, I appreciate your new effort. So now, he returns to talking about how people get hurt (FAIL; this does not help, WHY WILL BANNING BE EFFECTIVE). He then claims that people can find the beauty contest, but now offers no evidence at all (face-palm.) I agree that pro makes a good case about the contradiction, so this argument has turned to pro (it was useless straw-man/special-pleading anyways) Pro then basically moves on to the morality argument and concludes with the fact that less people will die (Excellent!)

Con responds that pro can't take control of other's lives and that they can do anything. however he offers no justification (Note the code of "good man" or something, it allows you to be a good person with good intentions and not be responsible for accidenatal bad things you do) My god....he then continues to allude to killing people as a good thing (my god, once again, straw man....he offers no solid justification for murdering the innocent. Shall I murder you because I feel like the world has too much people? There are much worse people who make better targets for murder. I feel like con could have pointed out that these beauty contestants died making their own choices, therefore their death is justified, yet this never comes through me. Also, he fails to rebut back his contradictory statements and drops the evolution argument completely. Finally, he talks about how people will be unhappy....but is this comparable to lost of lives? Of course not.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
RFD part 2
Pro is right, con is terrible in his accusation. Anyhow, he now shows actual possible negative impact (yes, this is what I meant) but fails to justify why costing 2 years in prison and $40,000 dollars in fine is easy to enforce (or even just not difficult). His argument about how we are running out of space seems irrelevant, but I can see where this is going (it counters the evolution=good argument by con, and more and more women are getting into beauty contests, and he shows the negativity of BC's quite well) and he also talks about the neg. health effects of BC's.

Con complains about pro's lack of thinking; I agree, he fails to make the big connections, but we're all improving, aren't we? And so he talks back to his difficulty of banning Beauty contests (once again un-refuted) And shows the irrelevancy of banning to the world's population (Both sides made massive special pleadings in this argument so I'll just give this to con for now). He then moves on to his question and asks whether it will be effective or not (a crucial argument, let's see if pro manages to rebut this)
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
RFD part 1
Pro appeals to authority with people who want to ban beauty contests--just don't do this, try to do some ethos and actually argue why these random people should be trusted.
As I said before con made a false accusation so I'm tempted to give conduct to pro. He effectively turns the case against pro and shows the logic fallacies of those people. As I said before, Why should we trust these random people WHO WANT TO BAN BEAUTY CONTESTS? If you got a trust worthy seemingly neutral source with faces talking about the bad things, THEN that's impressive and shows actual evidence.
Posted by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
I'm not going to vote on this because I am agreeing with Con. Tmdog, I highly recommend not just copy/pasting the entirety of your argument into the debate. Use it to support your claim, reference it, use one or two sentences, but you aren't arguing anything if you aren't coming up with your own arguments. Sure, it isn't plagiarizing I guess, but it certainly isn't debating either. As soon as you stopped quoting entire rounds from other sources, your arguments fell apart, because you didn't back anything up. Nobody is saying don't use sources, just use them wisely.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Tmdog3758Debate_King1475Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: sigh....I'm tempted to give pro conduct since con was falsely accusing pro of plagiarism. Rest of vote in comments.