The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,845 times Debate No: 19349
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Beauty, although is a relative term, has became a word that cannot be separated from society's impact on its definition. People have, for as long as love existed, placed a view on beauty. From the medieval days, when the king sought out the prettiest lady of the land, to the present, when people get to choose their partners. Barbie has been a figure, a role model of what beauty is; tall, blonde, and thin. Beauty is ultimately tied in with fashion, and fashion changes over time. Since the fashion industry is both shaped by the preference of the consumers and the creative talents of the designers, it can be said that it is people who choose the latest fashion. Going back to my previous point, beauty is chosen by people, and there is a generalization of what is beautiful and what is not. True love endures through the good and the bad. When one person becomes disfigured, the other still show love. The beauty described is not the physical beauty but rather the idea that what they once were. No one falls in love with someone who is ugly, there has to be an alternative reason for love. When people, despite asked for their honesty, tell a lie to make someone feel better, it proves the point that there are guidelines for beauty. The liar is merely fitting into utilitarianism views. If beauty was truly in the eyes of the beholder, then celebrities will have much less relationship problems and scandals. There are whole events trying to put a "number" or value on beauty such as Miss Universe. If a baby comes out deformed, the mother will still think he or she is the most beautiful babe in the world. The mother is not saying that the baby is beautiful, but the relationship between the baby and the mother is something greater than that which meets the eye.


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder can be justified if one person sees someone as beautiful and someone else doesnt, there is no set definition of what is beautiful and everyone else has their own standards. There may be a generalization of what is considered beautiful but that does not mean everybody adheres to those standards.

When you say that no one falls in love with someone who is ugly, you are basing that on your idea of what ugly is, and just like how everyone has a different concept of what it is to be beautiful, everyone also has their own idea of what being ugly is.

Telling someone a lie that they are pretty is not doing so because they are complying with utilitarianism views, they are telling them that because they are being nice to them and want to be respectful to them.

Yes there are events that judge who is the most beautiful, like Miss Universe, but that does not mean everybody agrees with the ruling. I personally thought Miss Philippines should have won, others may think someone else should have won, and that happens because beauty is in the eyes of the beholder/judge

A mother may not believe their deformed child is the most beautiful, they will however love that child regardless of the condition of the child. That relates to mother-child ties not the perception of beauty.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder because each and every person has their own idea of what beauty is. There is no universally accepted standard of what a beautiful person looks like, so people can set their own standards and thus be their own judge of what beauty is.
Debate Round No. 1


There are standards for what is beauty and what is ugly. These standards vary greatly, but in the most general terms, beauty, is defined. Not to be insensitive, but deformity, and such are not considered as something beautiful. People with those are still loved because of something beyond our scope of understanding. We choose the word beautiful to replace the specific, personal uniqueness a relationship might have. When looking at this, beauty cannot be defined, but it has to be defined by what it is not. Your definition of what beauty is, may vary from mine, but your views of what beauty is not, may be quite similar to majority of the people.

The whole event of Miss Universe or any beauty pageant, is to put a standard on beauty; and they have successfully done so. When the winner is chosen, she is now the new standard for beauty for many people. Even if you do not agree with the result of the contest, you immediately get the idea that she is beautiful. Right there, when they tell you this is prettiest woman in the world, they have placed a standard of beauty. People will follow that standard, which makes the idea that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder.
Before Justin Bieber became famous, people would have looked at him like any other teenager. After all that hype about his breakthrough, people imitate his hair style, his cloths and his looks. Again, a standard was set for what beauty looks like.

The example of a mother and a deformed child is to prove the point that beauty is merely a word used to replace another to mean the strong connection between them. The mother does not really think her baby is beautiful, she is merely using that to demonstrate love. Bluntly, she is lying. The idea that you can lie about something like beauty, means it must, to a degree, have a definite answer. People cannot lie unless there is a truth to be hidden from.

Many contests place a set value on beauty. From expensive masterpieces, to neighborhood garden contests, people will judge and with that, they will define something that is good. Irregardless of what some of the skeptics believe, if the piece of art of garden won a contest, then by default, that object is beautiful.


The mother who says her deformed child is beautiful is only lying........ Its hard to fathom your statement because there is a very very good chance that the mother does see her own child as beautiful. You base your opinion that she is lying on the fact that you think her child is not beautiful, BECAUSE THATS HOW YOU DEFINE BEAUTY.

Just because society sometimes creates standards for what beauty is people do not follow them. I think the winner of Miss Universe is rather plain, I think that Bieber looks like a troll and needs to drop dead as soon as possible, and I still see nothing attractive about Megan Fox even though others do.

Society sets standards on beauty but there will always be people who retain their own standards of what beauty is. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder regardless of what society sees as beauty...

Thanks for reading :D
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by AnnaMM2002 5 months ago
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder because...
Beauty, generally, is thought to be the combination of qualities, such as shape, colour, or form, which please the senses, especially the sight.
But what of beautiful methods of life or expressions of thought. Or a beautiful mental pursuit.
These things are not sensual, but can be experienced by the soul. They do not have a physical form, so there must be something deeper to beauty than appearance.
The soul is a noble and spiritual thing which perceives beauty when it finds traces of similar nobility and spirituality in things.
Nobility and spirituality come from communion with the divine artist, God.
The artist, God, coordinates a diversity of parts into a unity, he rallies confusion into cooperation, and creates only a harmonious coherence. The soul is made in this way. When the soul recognizes other things made in this way it experiences beauty.
Since beauty comes from the divine artist or God, it has His nature. Truth, the corresponding to reality, is another attribute of God. Therefore, beauty is truth. Truth is universal, it cannot contradict itself or it would not be the truth. Therefore, beauty is also universal. What is universal applies to all things and it therefore not subjective.
So I conclude, that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Double_R 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious win to Pro. Cons argument asserts that society places a standard on what is accepted to be beautiful, which is generally true. This however does not negate the resolution. Pros examples showed all they needed to, which was that people have different opinions on what is beautiful. What society decides is beautiful does not change this.