The Instigator
LoveAndDebate
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Futurepresident2048
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Fashion is an invented social construct primarily used to reinforce elitism

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2015 Category: Fashion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 870 times Debate No: 72285
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

LoveAndDebate

Pro

New here but please feel free to challenge me if new yourself or experienced pro.
I currently feel that the fashion industry is an invented social construct primarily used to reinforce elitism, and provides no benefit to society and infact is often a overall negative.

To clarify 'fashion' I do not mean people dressing the way they want to, but more the industry;Catwalks, designer brands, magazines, the idea of 'trend' & 'trendiness'.

I believe that for example 70's style clothing looks worse now than it did, but merely that the culture has changed and now its suggested its unattractive or not appropriate, though if worn well someone could easily wear a 70's style and look good(good being attractive to possible mates and comfortable with themselves)

Mostly looking good is about finding a mate and gaining acceptance within your local community & peers,
>>biologically we want to breed, an activity which is usually done naked
>>if you're comfortable with your style your friends will except you however you dress (within reason eg; cleanliness, not garish)

The fashion industry is about money, the reason trends and what's 'in' changes rapidly, is to sell more clothes.

Expensive designers produce crazy, unwearable clothes because most sensible perfectly reasonable clothes have already been designed and crazy is a way to 'look' creative and advertise your main line of clothes which usually bear almost no resemblance to what you seen on 'high fashion' catwalks.

The net negative of the fashion industry resides on its effect on women's confidence, creating an illusion most men care about how fashionable women are, when in fact most men are attracted to confidence and a sense of style that suggests shared values (or cleavage, cleavage tends to attract a lot of men however you dress).

apologies for the essay!, fight me prove me wrong, or at least expand my opinion.

Side note; first debate please PM me with anything you find wrong with the design/structure of this debate, I'd appreciate constructive criticism cheers.
Futurepresident2048

Con

1. The reason for all these types of designer clothes that are high priced and such is that fact that the designer clothing industry is a industry. People go into this industry cause it's all they are interested in and then there are consumers who are as well. It's simple economic of supply and demand, their is a demand for high quality clothing from those into the design and a supply of those into making them.
2. It has nothing to do with elitism, as shown in my first point it's just economics.
Debate Round No. 1
LoveAndDebate

Pro

Thank you for replying,

"it's just economics"
True, but then everything is economics, economics is the study of behaviour of individuals and there actions, my argument is that the defining motivator for individuals to engage in the 'fashion industry' is one of obtaining and displaying a higher social status.
Your statement that's it's due to supply and demand is not relevant to the debate(the question is; what is the primary social cause of the demand?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.investopedia.com...
Futurepresident2048

Con

I did answer your question.
Like I said in my opening statement, the fashion industry is a industry. People don't just buy nice clothes to obtain that social status, they buy cause it's a interest that people take, wealthy people all the time will wear trashy clothes cause they don't care about clothes. People buy clothes depending on their personalities and interests, which is why it's economical.
Debate Round No. 2
LoveAndDebate

Pro

Thank you for your response, here is my rebuttal;
"they buy cause it's a interest that people take", yes but what is the defining reason for the interest, people have an interest sport for the excitement of watching their team win, but in fashion what other advantages other than a bonus to social status, and the additional attention and comments you could receive?

"wealthy people all the time will wear trashy clothes cause they don't care about clothes", yes these are people who do not engage in the fashion industry, and thusly not relevant to the debate.

"People buy clothes depending on their personalities and interests" - of course, but do the people who buy the latest designer brands do so because they have a 'Gucci' personality?
Do some people buy expensive designer clothes because they are interested in fashion, I wouldn't say no but when spending thousands on a bag is someone really thinking I hope this helps them finance more interesting designs or are they thinking how much attention they'll get from wearing it?

"which is why it's economical" - all decisions are economical, again this has no bearing, the debate is to discuss the reasons for these 'economical' decisions.
Futurepresident2048

Con

1. Again and again you are trying to go back to the argument that people buy for social status, yet I have debunked that again and again. The fact that many wealthy people don't partake in the fashion industry shows that fashion must not have anything to do with social status.
2. Like I've stated three times, fashion is a hobby, a interest, just like sports are. People buy and sell and wear clothes cause it's a hobby they have. My good friend who's a girl is middle class yet wears extremely fancy clothes and such as she wants to go into clothing design cause it's an interest to her. People get involved in fashion not for social status but for economic reasons or an interest in fashion.

You have failed to provide reasonable evidence as why it has anything to do with social status and just simply try to make my arguments irrelevant when they are extremely relevant since they prove my points.
Debate Round No. 3
LoveAndDebate

Pro

Again and again you are trying to go back to the argument that people buy for social status, yet I have debunked that again and again" did you, I only saw the words 'economic reasons' being repeated despite that fact that its a catchall phrase for all types of motivation, you'll need to provide more clarity than that I'm afraid.

"The fact that many wealthy people don't partake in the fashion industry shows that fashion must not have anything to do with social status" - no it doesn't, it only proves you can be rich without having an interest in fashion, agreed, but also not relevant, my argument is that people use fashion to reinforce and advertise their social status, if you're rich you don't have to buy expensive clothes but if you're not rich you can't, I'm arguing that there are some who can afford designer clothes and buy them to display their higher social status.
Your argument is a Propositional fallacy -- http://en.wikipedia.org...

"People buy and sell and wear clothes cause it's a hobby they have" or "People get involved in fashion not for social status but for economic reasons or an interest in fashion" -- Yes this is true, but why is it an interest?, clothing for millennia was purely used for warmth, protection and a display of social status, why do people wear designer brand, do they provide greater warmth or protection from the elements?
Its the same with cars, you want to go fast you buy an ariel atom, you want to show off your wealth you buy a Ferrari.

"You have failed to provide reasonable evidence as why it has anything to do with social status" - have you seen anyone on the red carpet wearing a store bought dress? Do bankers wear off the rack suits? have you seen royalty wearing khaki's? Clothes have throughout history been a sign of social status I now hand you the burden of proof to show why things have changed.

"just simply try to make my arguments irrelevant" -- that's debating, also they don't prove your points they're vague and full of fallacies.
Futurepresident2048

Con

Closing Statement

I would like to point out to all voters that the affirmation has only Rebuttles all my arguments and failed to present any logical, and reasonable evidence for his side of the debate. I brought up many sufficient and logical points to support my argument that fashion is simply another industry like all the rest that supply and demand effects. It has nothing to do with social status. Since the affirmation failed to debate for his side effectively, only tried to keep turning the debate around from my logical points, and that my side is common sense I urge a vote in negation.

Unlike my opponent I kept my arguments short, sweet, and to the point while my opponent dragged out long and dull arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=====================================================================
>DrewMcD // Moderator action: Removed<

2 points to Con (conduct, S&G). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Good argument from both sides. Both make good points.}

[*Reason for removal*] This RFD voted based on the wrong point categories. Having better arguments is not relevant to conduct or S&G. Even had this user awarded argument points, this RFD is still insufficient because it is far too generic in its explanation. It doesn't even say *that* Con had better arguments: it says both debaters were equally good. And it makes no attempt to explain *why* Con had better arguments.
=====================================================================
No votes have been placed for this debate.