The Instigator
GeorgiaAshley
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wrichcirw
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Beauty is inside and out

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...
wrichcirw
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,275 times Debate No: 27684
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

GeorgiaAshley

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent in advance.
That is all I will say for now...
wrichcirw

Con

Accept. Thanks for posting this debate.

Your move.
Debate Round No. 1
GeorgiaAshley

Pro

Thank you for accepting.

Beauty is often described as being seen in the eye of the beholder, but, true beauty is not just that which is seen; it's both inside and out. Contrary to popular belief, beauty is not just a gift that one is born with as a birthright, but one that is acquired through sometimes tedious work and diligence.

Is Beauty Only Skin Deep?

Unfortunately, we have all done it; made snap decisions about someone"s character based on their physical appearance.

It"s a very harsh reality but it happens daily. Whether it be at the workplace, at school, or even just passing someone on the street, appearance is a person"s way of advertising to the world what they are all about.

Akin to the way a book"s cover is trying to entice you to read the story. Are you less likely to pick up the book if the cover doesn't catch your attention? Unfortunately, for most people, that answer is yes.

It is said that it only takes about 3 to 5 seconds to make a first impression. What things are people picking up on in this short amount of time that make people feel like they can put their brain on instant autopilot, and judge?

Numerous studies throughout recent years have shown that people respond better to people that they think are attractive. Participants in the studies showed a significantly more positive response to those with big eyes, a small nose and full lips. These features seem to give someone an air of innocence and vulnerability, thus making people feel safe around them.

Even if we try not to judge people by the way they look, we assume things about them. A prime example of someone being judged by their appearance rather than for themselves is Susan Boyle. As she stood on the stage to sing, the judge"s faces told it all. They saw a frumpy middle-aged woman. Her hair was not done in the latest style, she was somewhat overweight, and her average looks were not what stars usually look like. All it took was for her to sing the first note of her song to prove to the judges they were all wrong. The look of amazement on their faces has been shown over and over on television, capturing their disbelief that someone with Susan Boyle looks could possess such a voice. The sad thing is, we as a society, make these cruel assumptions of people daily, and it must stop.

Beauty is not skin deep, true beauty is not something that you can judge with your eyes. It is something that comes from within.

No one is ugly, society is.
wrichcirw

Con

Out of respect for the PRO's argument, I have posted a link to Susan Boyle's performance:


I will also provide a link to the definition of beauty, where I find that I have quite an uphill battle in this debate:
http://dictionary.reference.com...

I will first challenge PRO's assertion that (QUOTE #1) "beauty is inside and out" by also citing his assertion that (QUOTE #2) "Beauty is not skin deep, true beauty is not something that you can judge with your eyes. It is something that comes from within." In this statement PRO refutes his own argument.

Assumptions

A - Beauty is Inside
B - Beauty is Outside
Outside = Skin Deep
Within = Inside

PRO's argument is as follows

(QUOTE #1) = (A & B)
(QUOTE #2) = (Not A & B)

Argument:
(A & B) -> (Not A & B)

This argument is not possible, it is a false argument. I move to win this debate solely based on this reasoning alone.


For the sake of argument, I will attempt to address PRO's other points. I will use Susan Boyle as exhibit #A.

Susan Boyle is, according to PRO, "a frumpy middle-aged woman. Her hair was not done in the latest style, she was somewhat overweight, and her average looks were not what stars usually look like." PRO uses Susan Boyle to argue that "Beauty is not skin deep, true beauty is not something that you can judge with your eyes. It is something that comes from within." I fully agree with this notion. This notion refutes the argument.

On second thought, I can't address PRO's other points, as they all build up to the Susan Boyle archetype. I agree that Beauty is not skin deep.

My apologies to PRO, as I'm certain he wanted the debate to expand beyond this point. However, as the argument is constructed, I believe this debate is over.
Debate Round No. 2
GeorgiaAshley

Pro

Please tell me how you wish to expand it and I will make it happen.
wrichcirw

Con

We can continue the debate in the comments section or in email if you like. As it stands, the formal debate is over.

Thanks GeorgiaAshley for hosting the debate, and thanks to the voters for following it.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
I sent you a friends request, we can continue it using the PM system on this website.

Cheers.
Posted by GeorgiaAshley 4 years ago
GeorgiaAshley
Whats your email?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by rross 4 years ago
rross
GeorgiaAshleywrichcirwTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Clever argument from Con, but Pro still could have won it. Shouldn't have given in.