The Instigator
nishanth
Con (against)
The Contender
CaptainCrustacean
Pro (for)

Beauty is only skin deep.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
CaptainCrustacean has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,082 times Debate No: 101130
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

nishanth

Con

Beauty is not skin deep because there is more to a thing than its outward appearance. It is better if we all are able to see that inner beauty, like belle, in beauty and beast.
CaptainCrustacean

Pro

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but beauty is only skin deep.
According to Merriam-Webster dictionaries 'English Language Learners' section, beauty is "the quality of being physically attractive" [1].
Using this definition (because CON has not provided his own), beauty is only skin deep, because it is the quality of being physically attractive.
Vote Pro
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
nishanth

Con

Using a dictionary definition is not appropriate for this type of argument. Beauty is an abstract concept which can be best explained by John Keats, a renown poet's, quote "A thing of beauty is a joy forever" (I'm sure you've heard it). This means, joy comes from beauty, so any cause of joy is beauty in the act; this includes the feeling, when a baby does the littlest of things, and everyone feels amused, and feel joy. That is beauty, in the act, but that isn't skin deep.

Merely providing a definition isn't enough. That's like trying to nail jello to a wall. And I'm not sorry to say, that beauty goes more than what you can see, because that is a happy thought. We may make assumptions about what we see, in our world, today, but we really need to look at this argument, in an open minded way. It is an abstract concept, like I've mentioned before, so we cannot use concrete examples, or definitions. Joy is caused by many things, therefore, beauty is not skin deep. Vote for con, that it isn't.
CaptainCrustacean

Pro

WHAT? You can't do this. You leave no definition for beauty, therefore I define it myself. When I do, you try to change the definition to benefit yourself. I'm sorry but you just can't change the definition in the middle of the debate. We are going off my definition, since you lacked to provide one.
Also, if we cannot use concrete examples or definitions, how to we know what beauty is? We don't. Because of this, we must use definitions, therefore we can use mine.

Let me remind you of the definition:
"Beauty is "the quality of being physically attractive"
Using this definition (because CON has not provided his own), beauty is only skin deep, because it is the quality of being physically attractive.

BTW: You can nail jello to a wall
http://www.myscienceproject.org...

Vote PRO
Debate Round No. 2
nishanth

Con

actually, beauty isn't skin deep, and here are every day examples of this:

- When you say that the rain is beautiful. Rain, which destroys houses and crops by flooding, isn't physically beautiful, but there is a deeper feeling

- When you say that life is beautiful, as in the proverb, "Tout est bien, la vie est belle." ("All is well, life is beautiful."). Life doesn't even have a physical appearance.

- whenever someone's personality is beautiful,that isn't skin deep.

- Any other example I provided; the baby's laugh. and actions

And we cannot be going off of your definition, because it is wrong. Your definition only includes a MINORITY of the actual use of the word beauty. Therefore, I have provided my own definition for beauty below that includes ALL VERSIONS, for the sake of your argument, and to clear the air, even though this has been mentioned before by me.

"Beauty is any real joyous aspect of our lives, in anything". This can be clarified, with "Beauty comes from joy, and the joycan be acquired by many things." That 'many things' includes physical appearance and the meaningful beauty. Since I provided this PROPER definition, there shouldn't be confusion with anything else. Vote for Con, the right side.

Also, please don't veer off topic just to support your argument in an innapropriate and unrelated way. There is no need to define my simile, just as much as there is no need to say that cloud nine can be any cloud, depending on the way you count.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nishanth 1 year ago
nishanth
I completely agree with you Nura, bu that is not wut I'm arguing for. I am saying that there is an inside in the first place, not that it matters. that's a different debate. Just because physical appearance matters more, doesn't mean that that's the only thing existent; there still is an inner beauty, and that's all that matters (in this debate).
Posted by nura 1 year ago
nura
Coming from a 16 year old girl who's had to deal with the feeling of insecurity & envy almost half of my life of living, I know exactly what I'm talking about. First off, the saying beauty is only skin deep refers to the term that no matter how amazing your personality really is, it doesn't matter in the hands of your physical appearance, because even if you found a cure for cancer it wouldn't really change what other people think of you physically, right? Its a harsh reality, the feeling of being slapped with the cruel standards and logic this world has been rooting for so long, that no matter how much you want to throw the common 'Its whats inside that matters' bullsh*t, it won't change the fact that physical beauty is what first attracts attention in the eyes of the public. The slogan 'love at first sight' speaks for itself, how can you instantly fall in love with someone when you haven't gotten the chance to get to know them? Its a saying that every each and one of us have experienced before, whether we like it or not. Although it may not be as strong as love, but we have dealt with infatuation for someone who we laid eyes on, because we can't help to stare and admire their LOOKS. Without knowing their personality yet, we can already sum up our want to get close and befriend that person (or at least get their number). Can we say the same to someone who's beauty does not live up to our standards, that we haven't had the chance to talk to yet? No, from my personal experience. Not once have I ever seen a horny deranged teenage boy instantly go for a not as beautiful girl on first sight, unless that so-called girl has a great body from the outside, as the boy would only search for their appearance first before engaging himself in a conversation. Not once have I ever seen an average, overweight, pimple faced girl casted as a Disney Princess. But until that day comes, its safe to say that what you appear to look like matters more in the term of beauty on the outside.
Posted by nishanth 1 year ago
nishanth
and this debate isn't as manipulative for you, as it is for me, because I am on the side that says that beauty isn't concretely defined.

Also, Cambridge dictionary:

an attractive quality that gives pleasure to those who experience it or think about it, or a person who has this attractive quality:
[ U ] The Grand Canyon"s natural beauty attracts tourists from all over.
[ C ] At 37 she was known as a great beauty.
R03;
Beauty can also mean an attractive appearance:

Notic ethe use of the word QUALITY
Posted by nishanth 1 year ago
nishanth
i mean @Shauntakeson
Posted by nishanth 1 year ago
nishanth
don't take things so literally, @CaptainCrustacean

That's not what ' beauty is only skin deep' means
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Beauty is only brain deep..An idea.
Posted by ShaunTakesOn 1 year ago
ShaunTakesOn
The word "beauty" implies a physical characteristic unless otherwise specified. You did not specify before the debate was accepted. Therefore, it is legitimate if Pro decides to stick strictly to the physical aspect of beauty. Though, Pro would still be wrong about physical beauty being only skin deep. Bone structure plays a part in the physical attractiveness of humans. Since bones are below the skin, the phrase "beauty is only skin deep" is false.
Posted by CaptainCrustacean 1 year ago
CaptainCrustacean
Just a note, I think beauty does go deeper then physical attributes, but am arguing because of how easy this debate could be manipulated.
Posted by RC-9282 1 year ago
RC-9282
Trying to figure out why that posted twice. Honestly have no idea.

?
Posted by RC-9282 1 year ago
RC-9282
My first reaction when reading this was like "WTF" with my hands in the air. I honestly would like to see if anyone opposes you on this.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.