The Instigator
Chrystahist
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
MrJosh
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Do you believe in the concept of slut-shaming?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
MrJosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,198 times Debate No: 57139
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

Chrystahist

Con

With the rising issue of rape and things that lead up to rape, a new term has arisen. Slut-shaming is shaming females who dress a provocative manner that might make men want to sleep with them. This brings the controversy that the victims of rape may have played a small factor in their own violation.
This is not true. I believe that rape is rape, whether the female is wearing provocative clothing or dressed conservatively. If she says no and a man goes on anyway, that is rape. The belief that provocative dressing puts women in blame for their own rape is preposterous. Slut-shaming is putting your own ideals and thoughts and trying to enforce them on others. I understand that some people may sees in a way that we don't approve, but it isn't fair to label them as something based off of something so superficial. There is nothing wrong with personally feeling that something isn't right, but when you start to put others down becuase you feel your opinion should rule someone else.
MrJosh

Pro


I accept this debate. Right from the beginning, I want to say that I have decided to argue the PRO side of this topic as a debating exercise; I imagine that I mostly agree with CON on this topic.


CON has defined slut shaming as, “shaming females who dress a provocative manner that might make men want to sleep with them.” I accept this definition.


CON has made two claims that he must defend. He has claimed that it is not true that rape victims may play a “small factor” in their rape. He has also claimed that slut shaming is a bad thing that should not be done. I ask that CON correct me in the following round if I have misrepresented his arguments. I will not only show that both of these claims are incorrect, but I will also argue for the proposition that slut shaming (as defined by CON) is a good thing.


I look forward to CON presenting his arguments in the following round.


Debate Round No. 1
Chrystahist

Con

Thank you for accepting my challenge. I just want to clarify that women wearing provocative clothing doesn't justify rape, or place blame on the female. I also want to clarify that it's okay for people to have opinions, but it goes wrong when you impose those opinions on others. The woman shouldn't be bullied into agreement.

I will start by defending my points.

1) Women are not to blame for their rape.
Dressing provocatively does not justify rape whatsoever. If a woman dresses in a way that sexual exposes her, that doesn't mean that men automatically have the right to have sexual intercourse with her, especially if she refuses. If she refuses consent, it is a no-go deal no matter how sexualized she may be. Simply saying that she was "asking for it" by wearing clothing is not an excuse. Obviously she wasn't "asking for it" when the man forced himself onto her. If the case was that men only rape women who "tempt" them, then what about rape victims who dress in conservative clothing, or children?Provocative clothing is not an uncommon thing nowadays. At beaches, women where very little clothing. At home/near homes, women tend to dress more conservatively. If this is true, why do most cases of rape occur either near the home (33%) or on the street near the home (19%)? Even by strangers, 45% of rapes are committed in the home of the victim. There is little said on rapes at beaches. Rapes are also conducted most by people that the victim knows or knew. In conclusion, rape seems to have more personal roots than superficial roots. If "asking for it" were the real reason for rapes, a lot more women would be raped at different places.

My basic conclusion is that rape is rape. It is the use of force to perform sexual intercourse on a person who was unwilling, whether she is dressed in sexualize clothing or not.

2) Slut-shaming is a bad thing that should not be done
Slut-shaming is based on a very subjective viewpoint on how people should dress. There is no one classification for a slut: some people may think a slut is a person who sleeps around, while another might think a slut is someone who dresses like one, etc. For the sake of this argument, let's define a slut as a person who has many sex partners. Slut-shaming is passing judgement on others because one believes he has the right to do so.

In addition to this, slut-shaming is based off of assumptions made by just looking at people. We have all learned the common phrase "don't judge a book by its cover." The same applies here. If a person looks like a slut, it doesn't mean that she sleeps or flirts around. Shaming her for expressing herself is not right. Don't get me wrong though. Dressing "like a slut" and acting like one are two completely different things. If a woman proclaims that she is a slut and she does sleep around etc., then it is only logical that people take her word for it. But if she doesn't proclaim being a slut or show any behavior that might point to her being a slut, then the slut-shamer is passing judgment, because he/she has no basis for believing that the woman is sleeping around.

People dress in ways that express their values or opinions. If those expressions come across to someone as being slutty, ad calls her derogatory names, that person has just made a huge judgment by thinking that her clothes defined her character. having an opinion is okay, but retaliating and degrading the female because of her dress is wrong, as slut-shaming does.

I look forward to what you have to say about this. Thank you once more for accepting this challenge.

**Statistics and numbers retrieved from New Mexico Clearinghouse on Sexual Abuse and Assault Services. Link: http://www.nmcsap.org...
MrJosh

Pro

I would like to thank CON for his comments this round.

Clothing Choices

CON has further clarified in the comments that he is only referring to women’s clothing choices when discussing blame for their rape. With this further clarification, I will concede this single point, that a woman’s choice of clothing does not in any way place any blame on her should she have the misfortune of being raped.

Slut Shaming-Rebuttal

CON has made numerous points here that are not relevant to the debate at hand. He seems to have gone to great length to describe what slut shaming is, when we already have an agreed upon definition. In round 1, CON defined slut shaming as, “shaming females who dress a provocative manner that might make men want to sleep with them,” a definition I have accepted. CON has made the case that the one who is doing the shaming is basing it on their own opinion, and that they are being judgmental, but he has not demonstrated how or why this is a bad thing.

Slut Shaming is Good

Slut shaming is a form of social sanction [1] which is a way social groups encourage conformity to the norms of that group. Conforming to group norms is known to have numerous benefits, including allowing the member to participate in group activities [2], increased group cohesion [3], as well as fulfill our “need to belong” [4]. So it is in the best interest of the individual to conform to the norms of the group, and it is in the best interest of the group to enforce conformity. We can see that slut shaming, when viewed as the social sanction it is, serves a positive role for both individuals and groups, and is therefore a good thing.

Sources:

[1] http://www.britannica.com...
[2] http://www.uky.edu...
[3] http://blog.lib.umn.edu...
[4] http://changingminds.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Chrystahist

Con

Thanks for your arguments. I do admit to describing what slut-shaming is. PRO has stated that I have not demonstrated how or why basing opinion and being judgement are bad. I clarify that only basing opinion is not bad, but imposing opinion is not. I apologize for not making my point clear on why being judgmental is wrong.
I will continue by further clarifying.

1) Slut-shaming includes being judgmental. This is bad.

The reason this is not good is because the people who slut-shame are judging people by how they look and making an assumption that has little to no background evidence. Calling someone a slut and shaming her for what she wears doesn't make her a slut. This can cause the put-down of someone based on something that might not even be true. Judging based on dress falls under the same unfair superficial category as judging based on skin color, gender, etc., with making biased assumptions that have not been proven. After unfair judgment has been passed, the issue with imposing opinion arises.

Shut-shaming imposes others' opinions on the victims. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and expression, and there is no problem with that. The problem comes when someone tries to force/press their opinions onto someone else, mostly by ridiculing or bullying. Slut-shaming falls underneath this umbrella. Opinions are viewpoints that are individual to each person; they should be shared and advised, not bullied into people. Individuals need to understand that not everyone agrees with everyone else, and there will be discrepancies. And the root of this chain reaction of imposing opinion is the passing of unfair/baseless judgement.

In addition to this, the imposing of an opinion also alludes to the fact that slut-shamers put their opinions above others. Everyone person has different values and ideals, and for one to humiliate another person based on a disagreement with the target's dress preference is very wrong. If the target thinks that dressing in what she believes is sexy is something valuable to her, no one has the right to come and say that this is not valuable to her, or that she can't value that aspect. The shamer may have a right to express their views and advise, but not to criticize the other party for her dressing preference. That's where the wrong is. Since sexy/not sexy are very subjective, there is no right or wrong. Trying to impose one's opinion because one thinks it's the right view is wrong. The same applies to women who like to show off their bodies. Not everyone will agree that this expression is right or respectful to her, but in the end, she will be the one who chooses what to wear In the end, her opinion, whether it is acceptable to us or not, will be the basis for her clothing. We can advise her, we can state our opinions, but we can not bully her for what she puts on.

Indeed, simply stating our views and advice could be more effective than trying to shame into someone agreeing with our personal clothing opinions.

2) Slut-shaming, even for social sanctions, is still wrong.

PRO has made a point that slut-shaming is "a form of social sanction which is a way that social groups encourage conformity of that group." I accept this definition. In accepting this definition, it does not justify the judging of another person, nor does it justify feeling scorn or esteem by another community (Encyclopedia Brittanica, 2014). Judging is still wrong, and scorn is still hurtful. PRO has not elaborated on the existence of multiple social groups in one community. If this is so, the target of slut-shaming may have no problem leaving the slut-shaming social group and moving on to the next one, one that might accept her welcomingly and fairly. She can conform to other social groups that she accepts as they accept her, and she can reap the benefits of the group as well. This way, the need to belong still exists and is met.

In addition to this, I believe it is safe to say that if social groups that accept slut-shaming exist, social groups that oppose slut-shaming also exist. While slut-shaming may run amok all around the US, at the same time, people are taking stands against slut-shaming. In this case, slut-shaming does not share a positive role for the specific group(s) or individuals in that group, and therefore is not always a "good thing". I believe that slut-shaming can not just be labelled as an all good thing, since it is so subjective (and based on judgment) and controversial.

To add to my argument on why slut-shaming is bad, I want to state that slut-shaming does not work much for the benefit of the target. A slut-shamer's goal is to make the target see how her dress may cause men to lust for her, and make her feel bad or shame her for her choice in clothing. Although intentions may be good and the individual may change to the slut-shamer's approval, the problem has just been shifted from one point to another. Now, slut-shaming has made the target feel worse, and can even deteriorate the target's emotional, mental, and psychosocial condition. Slut-shaming can turn a confident, happy girl into a depressed individual fairly quickly. The effects of slut-shaming are clear. "...Girls are often left with a sense of deep humiliation, shame, embarrassment, worthlessness and pain. They also may resort to self-bullying and eating disorders to cope with pain. And many have body-image issues. Even depression, anxiety and thoughts of suicide are linked to slut shaming [1]" (About.com, 2014). Even as a social group sanction, slut-shaming does more harm than good, even leading some individuals to suicide. So yes, the person is encouraged to dress in a more conforming manner, but at the same time, she may be depressed, humiliated, and embarrassed to the point of potential suicide. This is not good.

Again, I thank my debater for his points, views, and arguments.

***Link to source: [1] http://bullying.about.com...
MrJosh

Pro

I would like to thank CON for his comments this round. There have been a lot of points offered; I will do my best to address them all.

Absolutes

Before I really get going here, I want to address a point about absolutes. CON’s stated that “Slut-shaming is a bad thing that should not be done.” I stated my resolution that slut-shaming is “a good thing.” I want to point out that both of these statements are made in an absolute sense, but that it is unreasonable to expect either of us to show that slut-shaming is always bad or always good. In fact, I would argue that if this is the standard, we have both already failed.

The reason I have made it a point to address this is because CON has argued that slut-shaming “can not just be labelled as an all good thing.” It is neither absolutely good nor absolutely bad, and neither side of this debate should be judged by its ability, or lack thereof, to show that its side is correct in an absolute sense.

Judging

CON has spent a fair amount of time this round explaining how slut-shaming is basically judging other people. What CON has not done is explain how that is a bad thing. We judge things and people all day long [1], and it may well be a positive evolutionary adaptation. If we judge a situation to be potentially harmful, it is in our best interest to be wary. If we judge a food to be too hot, we had best let it cool down. Simply arguing that an activity is equivalent to judging is not enough to label it as bad.

Opinions

Another argument CON has made is that slut-shaming imposes one’s opinions on another. Our opinion is basically our viewpoint about a thing or subject [2] In similar fashion to his complaint about judging, CON has not explained why this is a bad thing.

CON also made a point about the individual putting their own opinion above that of others. First of all, this is not accurate. The individual doing the shaming values their opinion, as well as the opinion of their group. CON inaccurately suggests that the shamer considers the shamed to have an opinion of lesser value. The shamed individual isn’t being shamed for their opinion; they are being shamed for their actions. Actions can benefit or harm a group, and as I elaborated on in the previous round, groups have a vested interest in enforcing behavioral norms.

Social Sanctions

Here, CON again argues that slut-shaming is bad because it is judging, and again he asserts that judging is wrong without supporting that claim. CON has also made an irrelevant point about leaving social groups. Yes, an individual can leave the social group, and then there would be no more slut-shaming, so it is pretty much a moot point. The social sanctions would have worked, and everybody would be happy.

Multiple Social Groups

CON has made a point to show that I have not addressed the existence of multiple social groups within a given community. I have touched on this just now. However, I do not see how further discussion is relevant to the debate; if CON would like me to further discuss the matter, perhaps he can show how it impacts the discussion.

Slut-Shaming Groups

CON has made an odd point about social groups existing pro and con the action of slut-shaming. He claims that “slut-shaming does not share a positive role for the specific group(s) or individuals in that group.” This is just flat out wrong, because if a group exists in opposition to slut-shaming, than the opposition is a source of group identification and may well be the glue that holds the group together.

Goals

CON has claimed that the goals of the shamer are to “make the target see how her dress may cause men to lust for her, and make her feel bad or shame her for her choice in clothing.” This is not accurate. The goal of the shamer is the change the behavior of the individual being shamed. This is, again, in the best interest of the group.

Definitions

What appears to be CON’s best argument so far is that slut shaming has led to all sorts of negative consequences for the individuals being shamed. It should be noted that the source CON links to uses a different definition for slut-shaming than the agreed upon definition for this debate. We have defined the term as, ““shaming females who dress a provocative manner that might make men want to sleep with them,” whereas CON’s source defines it as, “a form of cyberbullying where girls are targeted on social media and bullied through degradation or humiliation for their sexuality” [3]. This is not the same thing we are debating, and all of CON’s arguments based on this foreign definition may be dismissed.

Final Thoughts

I have shown that slut-shaming can play a positive role, with many social benefits. CON did not dispute any of the benefits I described. Instead he has tried to argue that it is a bad thing, but his arguments have basically boiled down to fiat declarations of various actions as “bad.” I look forward to CON’s comments in the next round.

Sources:

[1] http://advancedlifeskills.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://bullying.about.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Chrystahist

Con

Thank you PRO for your comments. You made some very excellent points, but I believe this argument will contain rebuttals. I agree with your words on absolute sense.

Judging and Opinions

PRO makes a statement that I have not elaborated on why judging is bad, when I have made points on why judging is not right. I have stated:
  • Judging creates opinions that are based on little to no background evidence (baseless opinion). Someone can be targeted for a thought that might not be true, which can be unfair/not beneficial to the victim. Even though I have stated why judging and baseless opinions are bad, PRO has not commented on why these things are good.
  • PRO has stated that I have not commented on why opinions are a bad thing. PRO has put a seemingly irrevelant definition to support his claims. In truth, I didn't even say opinions were a bad thing. I said baseless opinions and the imposing of opinions is bad because it means putting your beliefs over others, and opinions with out evidence at that. PRO has not commented on why baseless opinions/imposing opinions (as mentioned in the previous round) are good.
Rebuttal #1

Before PRO starts to mention that judging may be a positive evolutionary adaptation, I believe it would be appropriate to state that judging a situation that might endanger your life/health is very different than judging whether someone is slutty/flirtatious because of what she wears. In that case, the person is judging either a situation or non-human object. When faced with another person, however, subjective views that don't relate to life, death, or health come into play. I'd like to hear PRO's comments on this.

Imposing Opinions/Thinking Less of Opinions

I'd also like to say that when opinions are imposed, the opposing party is indirectly saying that the target's opinion is lesser/not right. Impose is defined as "force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place [1]" (New Oxford American Dictionary). The biggest part of that definition is "to be accepted or put in place." Basically, when opinions are imposed, the opposing party believes that a better opinion needs to be put in place of the other; "disregard your opinion because it's not right/we don't agree with it. Instead, use this one that is right." That is also wrong, as opinions aren't meant to be better or worse than another, nor should they ever be imposed. They can be tweaked, changed, but not better than another. I'd also like to state that while PRO has said that I have not stated why these are all bad, PRO has also provided no explanation for why is it good either.

Rebuttal #2

PRO has said that "the shamed individual isn't being shamed for their opinion; they are being shamed for their actions." I find a small little crinkle in this. The target of slut-shaming acts based on her values and opinions. If a woman thinks that she is sexy (or values sexiness) and decides to dress provocatively, and then someone targets her for her dress, the opposing party is basically saying that her action isn't acceptable here, and they don't want her to express your opinion. This is where it's wrong. If you target the action, you most likely also target the opinion. Opinions should not discourage others from expressing their opinions, even if they don't agree. Opinions definitely shouldn't impose, especially if the opinion is baseless.

Rebuttal #3 - Social Sanctions

PRO has stated that I have made an irrelevant point about leaving social groups. I don't agree that this point was irrelevant. PRO made a statement in round 2 that said that slut-shaming works in the benefit of the individual by allowing her to reap the benefits of social grouping. Despite this, PRO had also made an argument that made it seem like there was only one social group in a community, and that if the target of slut-shaming didn't conform to group norms, he/she would not reap the benefits of conformation. If multiple social groups exist, I believe that the individual can just leave the social group that does not accept her and to one that will accept her. PRO has made it seem as though the individual could only reap the benefits of social groups by conforming to the slut-shaming group's ideals, but the individual could just leave the slut-shaming group and move to one that either doesn't slut-shame or accepts her as she is. Basically, the individual could be benefited by groups other than the slut-shaming group. Social sanctions may have worked, but the individual may not be happy. In the same way, leaving the group for another would work, and then everyone would be happy.

Groups that Oppose Slut-Shaming

You're right there. I concede.

Goals of Slut-Shamers

PRO has stated that the goal of the slut-shamer is to "change the behavior of the individual being shamed". I accept this, but I find this definition incomplete. The slut-shamer(s) plans to change the individual's behavior by shaming her (potential humiliation) or punishing her (social sanctions). This may seem to be in the best interest for the group, but what about the individual? What about her best interest? I think that's just like bargaining: the target gives up the comfort of her views to reap the benefits of an opinionated group. Not to mention the hurt that the individual may face from the slut-shaming.

Definitions + Argument still Applies

PRO has stated that the definition of slut-shaming used on the site that I referenced is not the same as that which as been established. While this is true, I don't consider that a reason to debunk the former argument. Whether the opposing party cyberbullies or not, it is still-slut-shaming, and slut-shaming in the accepted definition can still cause depression, mental disorders, etc. Although the slut-shaming defined in the debate does not include computers, PRO's mentioning of social sanctions can even be considered as bullying, humiliation, and degradation (mentioned below), which is all "in the best interest of the community." Being in the best interest of the community does not erase the hurt/humiliation placed on the target.

Not only is slut-shaming (in any form) detrimental to the target, but shame itself has a variety of negative implications on the individual. "Shame is often unbearable. For example humiliation and mortification, which are part of the 'shame family of feelings' may be so painful they may lead to violence or suicide...Shame is often a central ingredient in experiences of being alienated, insecure, inferior, or rejected..."[2].

Social Sanctions may not be Beneficial to the Individual

PRO has made many points on social sanctions, and Encyclopedia Brittanica states "Social sanctions...include...informal scorn or esteem by members of the community...This may [also] include ridiculing...[or] injuring...[3]" (2014) (I included parts of the sentences that applied to the argument). The social group may even gossip or exclude the individual as a form of social sanction. All these forms of social sanctions work more in the harm of the individual than benefit. Exclusion, for example, can affect one's ability to self-regulate [4]. Gossiping is another social sanction that could even be classified as bullying. Scorn in any aspect can severely hurt an individual; it can make someone feel less of themselves or even resentful towards the offender. I think that we can both agree that ridiculing and injuring are of no benefit to the individual. All of the aforementioned forms of social sanctions can cause severe mental/psychosocial issues in the target that almost override the benefits of being in a social group.

Conclusion

I have rebutted many of PRO's arguments and added some of my own. I would like if PRO could name some form of social sanctions that don't impact the individual mentally, psychosocially, emotionally, etc., and if PRO believes that judging a situation and judging a person are in the same context. I thank PRO for his great arguments and look forward his comments.

Sources are in comments - no space
MrJosh

Pro

I would like to thank CON for his comments this round.

Judging and Opinions

I rightfully claimed that CON has not supported his claim that judging and opinions are bad. The fact that I didn’t follow him all the way down the rabbit hole of his reasoning from judging, to baseless opinions, to putting one’s own opinion over another is a red herring because none of it is supported. It is all a bald assertion.

However, to address them from the other side… Judging is good because it helps us to differentiate things. We necessarily do this every day. As I mentioned before, we judge the temperature of food before we eat it for purposes of our own safety. Similarly, we judge the trustworthiness of an individual before we enter into a contract with them. We judge all the time, and we rightfully do so for our safety. In fact, as a society, we feel judging to be so important, we actually hire people to do it professionally [1], and pay our peers to do it for us in extreme cases [2].

Regarding opinions, there is nothing wrong with attempting to impose your opinion on another; that is exactly what we are doing on this website. If you didn’t think your opinion was right, you wouldn’t hold it. Here on DDO, we argue about these opinions, trying to show others that we are right and the other guy is wrong; suggesting that they should change their way opinion to yours. We similarly argue about sports teams [3], politics [4] and even religion [5] all the time.

One final point I want to make is about CON’s use of the term “baseless” when describing an opinion. I think it can be argued that there is no such thing as a baseless opinion. Opinions may be based on bad evidence, but they are not baseless. CON’s use of this term seems to be an attempt to add a negative connotation to opinions.

Evolution

I think my suggestion that judging may be an evolutionary adaptation is valid. CON is suggesting that there is an inherent difference between judging life and death situations and judging social situations. However, instead of supporting that view, he is attempting to shift the burden of proof and make me defend the opposite point. This is a fallacious tactic [6]. The bottom line is that we evaluate the available evidence and come to a conclusion about the situation as well as possible courses of action. This is the same in combat as well as flirting with a crush.

Imposing Opinions

I believe I have covered this in the Judging and Opinions section.

Actions vs. Opinions

In the previous round, I pointed out that an individual who is being shamed is being targeted because o their actions, not their opinions. CON is trying to say that the opinion itself is being targeted. First I would like to point out that even CON has said that when one targets the action, the “most likely” also target the opinion. How do we know this?

To suggest another point; if a girl has an opinion that she is sexy and feels like dressing an particular way, but decides against it, she has a particular opinion that is not being acted against. Similarly, if the same girl chooses to dress in a way that might be seen as “slutty,” but does so in a venue that will not look down upon it, she will not be shamed. Both of these situations have a girl with a particular opinion, but she is only shamed in a particular situation, based on her actions.

Social Sanctions

CON seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill here. Let me attempt to simplify:

An individual acts in such a way that the group doesn’t approve. As a result, the individual is rejected by the group and does not reap the full benefits of group membership. The group uses shaming to deal with the non-conformist. Now the individual has two choices: conform, or leave.

1) If the individual conforms, they are able to more fully experience in-group benefits. Both the individual and the group are better off. The shaming has worked.

2) If the individual leaves for a different group, they have found a different group that can provide in-group benefits, and the original group no longer has a non-conformist to deal with. The shaming has worked.

In both situations, the shaming has played a valuable social role. Now, it can be argued that in either situation, the non-conforming individual has given something up, but I don’t know if this can really be argued in the context of this debate. Life is not a black and white, happy or not happy dichotomy; we all have to make sacrifices all the time. This is the nature of life.

Best Interest

I have addressed the interests of the shamed individual in the previous section.

Definitions

CON’s argument does not apply, based upon his attempt to redefine the term. His source actually defines the term as a subcategory of bullying [7], which is a far cry from the definition we agreed upon at the beginning of this debate. To clarify, the definition we agreed upon uses the verb “shaming,” which basically means, to make someone feel ashamed [8]. This does not include the laundry list of negative consequences CON suggests. What CON is describing is when a group or individual goes beyond the scope of shaming (perhaps into something else such as harassment). Just like water is a good thing, but can be dangerous when in excess, shaming plays a positive role, but become something different when taken too far. Keep in mind that we are not talking about slut-shaming being good or bad in an absolute sense.

Social Sanctions,,,the Individual

Between the previous section, and the section subtitled Social Sanctions, I have addressed all of the issues CON raised.

Final Thoughts

I have addressed all of CON’s points. I would also like to reiterate that I have shown the positive role of slut-shaming, and I have answered CON’s challenges to my points. On the other hand, CON has not been able to show that slut-shaming is bad, except in extreme cases. In these cases, I would again like to remind everyone that we are not discussing a phenomenon that is absolutely good or bad.

Side Note

Due to character limits, CON has placed his sources in the comments section. I will leave it up to the voters to determine if this is acceptable.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.thetoptens.com...
[4] http://www.nationalreview.com...
[5] http://www.debate.org...
[6] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
[7] http://bullying.about.com...
[8] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Debate Round No. 4
Chrystahist

Con

I thank PRO for his good statements last round. This has been an excellent debate.

Judging + Opinions

PRO continues to state that I have not explained the reasons why judging is bad, when I have. He calls my reason a rabbit hole, but I disagree with this term. I referred to judging as a chain reaction that leads to the potential targetting of someone based on something that could be untrue. However, it seems that PRO does not want to acknowledge this reasoning, and instead calls this a red herring. I have stated that it starts with judging (especially on superificial aspects such as appearance), which leads to the other factors that end in slut-shaming. If one didn't judge, the chain reaction would not begin and end up where it ends up. It seems almost as if the argument has been shifted: now it's why judging itself is bad, when originally it was why judging based on clothing is bad.

Regarding PRO's statements about judging being good to measure safety, the judging he mentions is still out context. Of course people will judge if a situation is safe or dangerous to them, and of course someone will judge if a contractor is trying to hurt/swindle them. In both scenarios lain out by PRO, saftey was at risk. However, this category of judging doesn't fit with defining someone based on their clothing and guessing their intentions. A person who dresses provocatively most likely does not have any intention to hurt people or pose danger to safety. Instead, the individual may be just going against the norms of a social group, causing an uproar. Now, because the individual has gone out of normal bounds, he or she is a danger to life/health and it is right to judge? This isn't true. From here, I would like PRO to justify how judging intentions/opinions based on clothing is the same as judging whether someone is trying to harm you, swindle you, use you etc.

PRO also connects imposing opinions with thinking opinions are right. In truth, this doesn't work. In debating with PRO, I am not trying to make him replace his opinion on slut-shaming with mine. What we're trying to do is state both sides of a statement to determine which is more valid. That doesn't mean I want you to believe in what I think or that you want to do the same for me. Even if someone loses a debate, opinions may or may not change. That's okay. Regarding opinions being right, I believe that everyone thinks their opinion is right. However, if I think my opinion is right, is it fair for me to try to make you feel the same as me?

PRO also states that I have used the term "baseless" to add negative connotation to opinions. This, in fact, is not true. Baseless is defined as "without foundation in fact" [1]. This is exactly what opinions and judgements based on appearance are: they have no foundation in fact, but rather in assumptioms made.

Evolution

I have addressed judging and PRO's evolution statements in the previous topic.

Actions vs. Opinions

PRO states that when the action is targetted, the opinion is not targeted. In the case of slut-shaming, opinion is targeted, whether it be outright or indirect. The individual dresses based on opinion or values of herself, as en expression. If someone targets her expressions, the opinion itself is also being targeted since the expression is a direct representation of the opinion. When you call someone "slutty" based on his/her dress, are you not saying that what she may think is sexy is not? The opinion in this case is targeted because it caused the action.

This brings up PRO's other point of saying that opinions don't always need to be acted on. This may be true, but one shouldn't have to withhold her expressed opinions because others don't agree with him/her. Dress is a direct representation of opinions: whether someone thinks an item of clothing is cute, if someone likes bright/dark colors, if someone values her body or not etc. In the same context, dressing provocatively conveys the individual's opinions. So if you target someone's clothes, you indirectly target their opinions as well.

PRO's argument seems to be that the individual is still able to express her opinion, but not everywhere. He explains that she is only shamed in a particular situation based on her actions. In this case, the individual's opinion isn't expressed, so slut-shamers have nothing to shame. Whereas if she expressed herself, she would be shamed. This whole point seems irrelevant to the argument; if we're looking at it from a perspective as when opinion should be expressed, then yes, slut-shaming can be avoided. However, if slut-shaming occurs, then the opinion is still being targeted as well as the action.

Social Sanctions

PRO states that social sanctions serve as a valuable social tool. He argues that even if the non-conformist doesn't conform due to sanctions and leaves, the sanctions still have served their purpose. However, PRO has not commented on the psychological scarring that the social sanctions (slut-shaming) may have left on the individual. Essentially, slut-shaming has solved the problem of eliminating the non-conformist, but in its wake it has left the possibility of depression, humilation, mortification, and a range of other negative issues on the individual that could escalate to psychological issues. So it's almost like switching a smaller issue for a larger one. More harm than good has been done. Simply labeling it as a sacrifice doesn't eliminate the new issue.

Definitions

PRO has stated that my argument on psychological damage does not apply because the slut-shaming is not defined as established in my sources. However, PRO's arguments on social sanctions fortifies my claims that slut-shaming can cause these effects. Social sanctions are nothing short of bullying in order to get the non-conformist to conform, including bullying, ridiculing, injuring, etc. [2].
PRO defined shaming, a definition that I accept, but he does not acknowledge that shame can be conveyed in both bullying ways or advising ways. The use of social sanctions tends to be levered closer to bullying than advising, as they are almost like ultimatum: either conform, or leave; we will act a certain way, and you will either conform or you will leave. When shaming in this way, psychological marks are still placed on the individual. So yes, slut-shaming has served its purpose, but it has damaged someone as well. It's almost a lose-win situation.

Final Thoughts

I have addressed PRO's arguments. I have noticed that PRO has not commented on the psychological damage done by shaming itself. I'd like to hear his comments.

Praise for my Opponent

PRO has done a great job debating. His points have been evidence based and valid. PRO has debated excellently, admirably, and intelligently. I have enjoyed myself during this argument, and I commend MrJosh for being a brilliant opponent.

Sources
[1] New Oxford American Dictionary (n.d.). Definition of "baseless." Retrieved from iMac app.
[2] Encyclopedia Britannica. Social sanctions. Link: http://www.britannica.com...







MrJosh

Pro

Once again, I would like to thank CON for his comments this round. As this is the last round, I will reply to CON’s comments, and then do a wrap-up, recap of the debate.

Judging Fallacy

In multiple earlier rounds, I pointed out that CON has not supported his claim that judging is bad. This is still the case; however, as CON has restated his argument slightly differently this round, I am going to focus on the new formulation of this argument.

The new version CON has forwarded boils down to judging is bad because it leads to slut-shaming. However, since CON has not yet demonstrated that slut-shaming is bad, CON’s argument that judging is bad can be dismissed. This is an example of a fallacy called, Begging the Question, where the conclusion of an argument is one of the premises [1].

Judging Examples

Here, CON is again trying to shift the burden of proof. He is claiming that my examples of judging being good don’t apply, but he is not supporting that claim. As I pointed out previously, this is fallacious reasoning [2]. However, even though I have no burden to do so, I will give a specific example, relevant to this debate, to demonstrate my point.

Imagine a social group, like we have discussed throughout this debate. This group values a particular style of dress. One individual decides to dress in a way that is contrary to the values of the group. Other groups may judge the group based on the individual, which may cause harm to the group. Therefore, the group has a vested interest in judging the individual’s style of dress, and taking actions to correct it, therefore maintaining their own reputation and standing.

Baseless-ness

Again, CON makes fiat declarations, which he does not support with evidence. If we accept CON’s definition of “baseless,” it still doesn’t apply to the situation. For instance, if we go back to our social group from the previous section, they are judging the individual’s style of dress, and forming opinions on the possible ramifications they as a group (and therefore the other individuals in the group), based on previous experience, and their knowledge of norms and mores, as well as the values of other social groups. This is not baseless.

Actions vs. Opinions

CON’s whole argument here seems to be that opinions and actions are inextricably mixed, and that an attack on the action is necessarily an attack on the opinion. I will give a simple example to show that this is not the case:

I enjoy walking barefoot. I feel it is more comfortable than wearing shoes, and in most cases, better for your feet. However, if I were to go to work barefoot, I would be sent home because I would have violated the rules. (Just for the record, rules and laws are the same as social norms; they are just written down and enforced formally.) My actions would be judged as a violation of the rules and as an unsafe practice. My opinion about the comfort of being barefoot and the health benefits potentially derived from it are not in question. My actions are being judged; not my opinions. It is the same with girls who choose to dress in a way contrary to the values of their peer groups.

Social Sanctions

CON has claimed that I have not addressed the damage that can be done when shaming is taken too far. The following quote is from my round four comments:

What CON is describing is when a group or individual goes beyond the scope of shaming (perhaps into something else such as harassment). Just like water is a good thing, but can be dangerous when in excess, shaming plays a positive role, but become something different when taken too far.

Like most things (I suggested water in the previous round), while a modest amount is beneficial, too much of a good thing can be harmful. For instance, the energy from the sun is beneficial and necessary for life, but too much of it leads to serious damage [3]. CON is unnecessarily focusing only on the extremes, which leads to absurdity.

Definitions

My objection to CON’s source, and therefore his argument, is that the source is redefining the term. It is claiming that slut-shaming IS these negative things. As I have explained this round and previously, these things occur when shaming is taken to an extreme and therefore has become something else. Therefore, to define shaming as these things would be intellectually dishonest.

Con has also brought up a point about shaming being used in an advising capacity, or being used to bully. This is another example of CON taking things to an absurd length. As I have explained, shaming is used by social groups to uphold their values. It is true that, like many things, shaming can be taken to an extreme point, but as I have explained, focusing on extremes like this tends toward absurdity.

The Second Prong

I would like to quickly revisit a point from early in the debate. In the first round, I pointed out that CON had made a two pronged argument, both prongs of which I was going to challenge. However, after a short conversation in the comments section, I decided to not address one of the prongs; a point I noted in the second round. I would just like to point out that my decision not to follow that line of argument does not invalidate my position as the prong we did indeed argue fully addressed the actual stated resolution of the debate.

Final Thoughts

I have shown how slut-shaming helps to maintain group dynamics allowing members to enjoy numerous in-group benefits. Also, I have answered all of CON’s objections to my arguments. Regarding CON’s arguments, I have shown how they do not apply, rely on fallacious reasoning, or are simply absurd, extremist applications.

Overall, I would like to commend CON on this debate. It has been both challenging and enjoyable. I found it very difficult to argue a position I don’t hold, and CON did not make it easy.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
[3] http://www.who.int...

Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
RFD:

This debate was a lot tougher to vote on than I originally expected. The points are well-made and tightly fought, for the most part. I'm glad that I read it :)

In the spirit of this debate, I am going to ignore the faulty resolution: "do you believe"", because all it would take is for Pro to say that he/she does believe, and that would virtually win the debate for him/her.

Also, since it is not specified, I will assume that the BoP is shared.

Key questions:

How much can you judge a person by what they wear?
How far does slut-shaming go towards scarring a person? Do the benefits outweigh the positives?

Women are not to blame for their rape.

Both debaters agreed that dressing provocatively does not mean that a woman is consenting to sex, nor does it give a man the right to rape her. Whilst Con won this point, I do not think it has much impact on this debate, if any. The statistics Con brought up were interesting, and whilst they were not addressed by Pro, I do not see how showing that "dressing like they are "asking for it" has little/no correlation with being raped", is relevant to this debate.

Subjective viewpoint

Whilst Con argued that shaming is done based on subjective parameters, and Pro agreed with this, Pro successfully argued that this does not necessarily affect how slut-shaming should be considered (e.g. bad). Pro wins this point, but as we will see later, Con has other points that could win Con the debate.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Judging things

It has become clear that both debaters agree that judging things, on the right occasion, is important and should be done. The difference comes about through Con"s argument that people should not judge each other so superficially. Pro counters initially with "we should judge things because some things can be dangerous, so we have to be wary. However, Con rightly points out that people dressing differently are not really threatening anyone, and there is no need to "hire" one of these people to "dress well", because these people are not part of your "business" (it makes sense, it"s just highly metaphorical). Even if the opinions are not baseless, as Pro correctly argued, Con still maintains that the base for forming these opinions is not sound.

I do not see how judging people based on clothes (which is the definition agreed on for "slut-shaming", which I think was a mistake Pro made) equates to avoiding danger or really anything practical.

Here, Con seems to debunk why slut-shaming is not necessary, and whilst Pro objects by saying that slut-shaming hasn"t been affirmed as good, Con addresses that later. So, with this section of argument, Con shows that slut-shaming is not necessary.

The individual leaving social group

This contention saw Pro successfully argue that slut-shamed can essentially find another social group to hang around. Con provided little response to this, so I think that Pro has shown that slut-shaming does not leave a woman totally ostracised, and it also keeps her away from people that do not like her. As Pro said, the individual always has two options: conform or leave. In both cases, the shaming has worked, which now gives Pro an argument to affirm the resolution.

The other feature of this topic was the "absolutes" argument, in which Con conceded that slut-shaming is not always good or bad, but hinges on context. A minor point, yet one worth mentioning, and one which Pro correctly argued.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Emotional impact on the individual

The emotional impact on the individual argument, on the surface, seemed really strong, from Con. But Pro did find some arguments against it. As Con argued, shame can bring about those things, by definition. But does slut-shaming bring about shame to that degree?

It was never really defined as to what extent the shaming was to be done. The definition given was:
"shaming females who dress a provocative manner that might make men want to sleep with them."
How much shaming? Can an off-hand "shame" cause this amount of damage, or does it have to be much longer than that?

According to one of Con"s sources, as Pro pointed out, the arguments used to make Con"s case extend from a different definition, one that relates to cyberbullying and attacked for their sexuality. This differs enough from the definition used for this debate, that it hurts Con"s case a fair bit.

However, Con redeemed his/herself with another source which argued that shame (which extends from slut-shaming, as agreed to in the definitions), can lead to all kinds of psychological damage. I am not sure how moderation of delivering shame can necessarily avoid these things. Again, the extent to which one has to be shamed in order to suffer from these psychological ordeals, and the shame implied with the resolution, are not clear. Shaming definitely can lead to these things, as Con argued. Yet Pro undermines this with the idea that shaming does not have to always be extreme.

This was a very important point in this debate, and it has been the hardest to judge on so far. I think that either argument makes sense, depending on the extremity of the shaming, which was never defined properly. I am awarding this section as a tie.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Imposing opinion

This point was interesting, and was a moderately important point in this debate. The debate narrowed the difference between the action and the opinion, in that shaming an action would also be shaming the person"s opinion (at least to a degree). However, as Pro pointed out, is there anything wrong with that? Debating is about imposing opinions on other people, so he claims. But then he also gave an example wherein the action is being judged, in that going to work barefooted is the action, and the opinion never came into question, when he was sent home.

I think though that Pro did lower the correlation down enough, so that shaming the opinion does not necessarily flow from shaming the action. His "if a girl has an opinion that she is sexy and"" example clearly showed that people could have opinions, yet not be shamed for them. Con"s point pertains to the indirect, to say the least.

However, Con also made a very good and uncontested point, arguing that:

"Indeed, simply stating our views and advice could be more effective than trying to shame into someone agreeing with our personal clothing opinions."

Not only does this point counter-act Pro"s argument, but it also provides a better alternative, making slut-shaming redundant. Correct me if I am wrong, but Pro did not make an argument to the contrary. This was a crushing point. I think this point wins Con this contention.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
~Verdict~

The imposing opinion contention was moderately weighted, and won by Con. The highly weighted emotional impact contention could not be split, due to definition issues (how much damage does shaming do? What is the average amount of psychological damage shaming will do?) Pro clearly won the leaving the group contention, which meant that women are not forced to be subjected to repeated/prolonged instances of slut-shaming. Con gave a good argument to show that slut shaming is not necessary, under the judging things section.

It is clear that slut-shaming is not necessary seems to be argued for adequately by Con. Pro"s won contention over leaving the group does not take away from the fact that shaming someone is not necessary. Con wins arguments.

~Sources~

Con"s dodgy source springs to mind as a problem. I think that Pro was slightly ahead on sources, too, by using quality site more often, and generally using more sources. I think the combination of all of this is enough to award Pro source points.

~Conduct~

I do not think that Con"s usage of the comments for sources should lose conduct points. Whilst it is a bit dodgy, there was nothing in the rules to say that it could not be done, and it did not give Con a noticeable advantage. If Con had done something else questionable, then I could understand conduct points, but I do not think that this standalone issue should count.

Feel free to question my vote. If you can show me that the content of the debate differs from my verdict given, I'll be happy to change it.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I'm glad you're handling this Zarroette
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
@Chrystahist

I'd argue that whatever 'psychological/mental/social damage' was necessary to keep women faithful ('imposing' a opinion on someone is impossible. It is ultimately up to the person whether he/she chooses to accept the opinion. Arguing that it damages women, an opinion no less, is weak and petty. People should not be granted such enormous power for playing the victim).

Female degeneracy should not be tolerated, as it leads to the destruction of the family unit. On the surface, this will look like a slippery slope, but I can assure you that I can each of the premises, which lead to such a conclusion, can be defended along the way.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
To anyone on the voting squad: I will be voting on this debate, later today. It's a rather long debate, and the winner isn't all that clear. Feel free to vote on it, but don't feel you need to just because it doesn't have votes.
Posted by Chrystahist 2 years ago
Chrystahist
@Zaroette
I can't exactly say that your comment is true or false, and I won't disclose my personal opinion here (you remember what happened last time). What say you about the psychological/mental/social damage that slut-shaming places on targets?
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Women's sexual liberation is the absolute death of monogamy, marriage and a healthy family. Slut-shaming is a vital part of keeping women from listening to their feelings, AS WELL AS discouraging player like behaviour from men, which is also very destructive.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Splenic_Warrior 2 years ago
Splenic_Warrior
ChrystahistMrJoshTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: For me, the crux of this debate lies in Con's continued claim that slut shaming is bad. As Pro pointed out several times, Con simply asserted this, without a cogent explanation. Also, Con showed that slut shaming MAY lead to some bad things (humiliation, etc.) or MAY take the form of a bad thing (bullying), but he did not explain why it was necessarily so. For these reasons, arguments to Pro. I also award Pro points for sources since his sources directly support his points, while Con's sources seem beside the point. Conduct was equal, and there were no noticeable spelling and grammar issues that warranted points be awarded either way.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
ChrystahistMrJoshTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.