The Instigator
rross
Pro (for)
Losing
38 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

For women, it's better to be average-looking than exceptionally beautiful

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 17 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 16,314 times Debate No: 27650
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (63)
Votes (17)

 

rross

Pro

This is just something I've observed in life.
Zaradi

Con

And I would love to see the justification for this other than "I see it".
Debate Round No. 1
rross

Pro

Hello Zaradi. Thank you for accepting the debate!

I would like to propose two mechanisms whereby life becomes worse for women as a direct result of being exceptionally beautiful.

  1. The sleaze-magnet mechanism

1.1 casual

When I was studying in France, I briefly became friends with an exceptionally beautiful Japanese woman. After class, we would try to go somewhere in the town to talk but it was impossible because men would approach her all the time. I mean, all the time, and their conversation was very tedious. They would ask her “what your name?” “where you from?” etc., and she would just giggle and look down because she didn’t want to talk to them and then they would ask me to ask her the questions and so on. After a couple of days, I started to make excuses not to go anywhere with her and we only saw each other in class. Poor, poor woman. To think that she missed out on my company and conversation as a direct result of being beautiful! It’s really sad. You’re probably thinking, “But wasn’t all the attention from handsome French men some small consolation to her?” No, it wasn’t. Here’s why.

If two women are in a café in sexy outfits and are making eye contact and have open body language, then of course it’s fine for men to approach them. However if they are covered from neck to ankle, as my friend and I were, not looking around and busy talking to each other, then they probably don’t want to be interrupted. Sensitive, intelligent, men know this and keep their distance. If one of the women is so exceptionally beautiful that they simply have to talk to her, then they will wait carefully for the right moment. Men who ignore this courtesy rule are without exception stupid, insensitive or desperate. Therefore, exceptionally beautiful women are always being plagued by men who are neither hot nor relationship material. This is annoying in itself, but it also prevents beautiful women from having fun with people who are not trying to have sex with them, you know, like friends.

1.2 serious

There is a very small minority of men who are sociopaths. I’m sure there are women sociopaths too, but they need not concern us here. I studied at university with such a man. He was very good looking, very intelligent, and on the national lacrosse team. Let’s call him Dick. Dick had a very strong sense of hierarchy. He judged me as being so low on the hierarchy that he wouldn’t even acknowledge me. If I happened to be standing in a group he would look right through me as if I wasn’t there. If I said something to him, he wouldn’t respond at all. I loathed him of course.

Well, it so happened that one of my best friends, who is head-turningly, exceptionally beautiful and who went to a different university, happened to meet him and they started dating. One night they came around to my house for dinner and Dick was a completely different person. Because I was friends with his girlfriend, he bothered to be charming. He was very, very charming. He laughed at my jokes, I laughed at his jokes… I had to keep pinching myself to remember to hate him. My friend, who had never seen his bad side, was head over heels, of course. They moved in together and two years later everybody, including her parents, was just begging her to leave him. But by then her self-esteem was wrecked. She blamed everything on herself. He was cruel, manipulative, and controlling. It was disaster and it took her years to recover. If she had been average-looking, Dick would never have even given her the time of day.

All the really, really beautiful women I know have problems with relationships. There is a sort of man who just wants a trophy girlfriend. These men don’t see or don’t care about a woman’s spirit; they just want to control her. Because they’re not slowed down by sincerity or having to be polite to people who can’t help them, and because they can be extremely charming, sociopaths are often very good at getting their target. Being average-looking is a perfect defense against such men. They have no interest in you. This is why average-looking women end up with the best men and the best relationships.

2. The self-esteem mechanism

Adolescence is usually characterized by a lack of power and influence. Even after graduating college, young people are almost always at the bottom of the career ladder and poor. Older people patronize them or ignore them. To get ahead, young people have to work hard and survive lots of bad days to educate themselves in the adult world. Gradually, their skills develop and they figure out how to succeed.

For beautiful women, life is nothing like this. They get heaps of attention from an early age. People like having them around so it’s easy for them to get jobs. Successful men will take the time to help them get ahead in whatever career they want. Instead of feeling powerless, they feel powerful, but in a limited way. Quite soon, beautiful women start to think that their attractiveness is the most valuable thing about them. Why bother to work hard and learn stuff when you can just slip on a cute dress and get what you want straight away?

There are several problems with this approach. The main one is that attractiveness to men, although heavily dependent on looks, is not entirely dependent on them. Men tend not to like it when women – beautiful or not – take away their power or resources. Therefore, if a woman bases her power too much on her attractiveness to men, she may find herself in a position where she must always be submitting to them.

Average-looking women, instead, are building up their skills and their careers so they can get what they want whether men give it to them or not. This is a much less risky approach to life, and far more successful in the longer term. There are many beautiful women in the public eye, of course, but they always seem to be constrained. Whenever an average-looking woman is successful or famous, she is much more likely to be speaking acting freely because she has gotten there on her own terms.

Women whose self-esteem is based on their attractiveness to men also spend an extraordinary amount of time and money on their appearance. Average-looking women who let themselves go a bit can spend that time on money on their own future and their own pleasure.

Zaradi

Con

I thank my opponent for her argument. I will now deconstruct her argument, then present my own. Keep in mind, though, that the BOP is on her to prove the resolution true. My only job is to prove her wrong, meaning that all I really have to do is refute her arguments (not using this to get out of making my own case, but it does give me multiple ways to win).

Point 1.1

Here my opponent is trying to say that all attractive women gather in douchebags by the truck-load, thus it's better to be not-so attractive. Her warrant for this? One random examples and a bunch of following assumptions. There's no actual evidence being provided by my opponent as to why ALL attractive women, as she is claiming, draw in jerks even if they don't want to. Since there's no actual warrant to this, I see no reason to weigh it in the round.

But secondly, this at best is a minor inconvenience. If a woman gets approached by a man whom she does not want to talk to, she simply can just walk away or tell him to go away. We men may be pretty stupid sometimes, but we can pick up fairly obvious hints, like a woman yelling "Get the f*ck away from me!" meaning that we should probably back off. There are a few exceptions, of course, but the vast majority of us do. The benefits of being beautiful (as I will go over in my case) far outweigh this minor inconvenience.

But thirdly, you're basing this objection off of subjective preference of your men. There are some women who DO like to be approached like that, and appreciate outgoing guys who like to take risks like that. To just lump all women into a super-conservative nature like that and reject any guys that try to talk to them when they're with their friends is a far-too-hasty assumption. For some women, the case you describe might actually be a benefit to them, as it allows them to meet more guys, which could increase their chances of finding their potential husband.

Point 1.2

My opponent establishes a situation where a guy completely wrecks a girl's life and the girl blames herself. Point taken, some guys can be pricks. To take that scenario and say that ALL guys are pricks and that ALL attractive females with boyfriends hate their relationship and that ALL guys who date attractive girls are sociopaths is far too hasty of an assumption to make with no actual proof to back it up with.

Moreover, there are also plenty of GREAT guys who date attractive females, and those females don't have problems with their relationships. I know quite a few head-turningly beautiful girls who have boyfriends and they are completely smitten with eachother and everything is going quite well. If we just base this debate off of who knows more good relationships or bad relationships, then we're not actually debating, but rather swapping sob/success stories. No thanks.

Point 2

This is where my opponent may make her most convincing argument, but even this one is lacking in actual validity. Let's disect it:

My opponent starts by saying that beautiful women get more advantages coming out of college and into the work-place. How this is a bad thing is beyond me, if anything they're added benefits and work toward my favor instead of her own. But continuing on, she claims that beautiful women start to think that it's only their beauty that's getting them by. This shocking new revelation is female psychology is one I never knew my opponent was qualified to make without any sort of secondary proof to validate her claims. But furthermore, there's nothing wrong with what my opponent is claiming. While it's true that if you can get into well-paying jobs by using your wit and intelligence, that's all the better. But if you have beauty in bucket-loads, and you know it works for you, why not take advantage of it to cover up some weak areas of yours? My opponent just makes the assumption that it's a horrible thing for someone to do, but she never really explains why it is. If beauty helps one get ahead in life, then why not is my question?

My opponent continues on to say that men don't like it when women take power over them, with, again, no actual proof to back up her claims. There are plenty of men who like to be the stay-at-home dad while mom goes out and is the bread-winner. There are also plenty of submissive guys who prefer the women to wear the pants in the relationship. To say that ALL men like to be in control with no actual proof is fallacious. But furthermore, even if she is right about that, my opponent makes the assumption about women being submissive is bad. But this also isn't true for all women, as there are plenty of women who are submissive, or do like to be the stay-at-home mom while daddy goes and earns the money. I may sound like a broken record with all the claims of my opponent not providing any proof, but my opponent must provide actual warrant for her arguments to have any chance of standing in a formal debate.

She then goes on to say that women who value their appearance more will spend more money on their looks instead of on other things (a valid assumption), but then claims that it's bad with no actual warrant. Why is it bad to spend money on maintaining beauty? If I want to be beautiful, why is it wrong for me to spend money on cosmedics or other methods of becoming more attractive?

Overall, my opponent presents no real compelling arguments that can stand against the heat of cross-examination. So let's now take a look at the benefits of being beautiful.

Argument 1: More Beauty, More Money

Whenever people are more attractive, society tends to think that they do better at what they do than compared to someone who isn't as attractive. 58% of women who were attractive received high ratings for their work compared to 41% of average looking females and 23% of bad looking females(1). These better performance ratings lead to higher income rates. Attractive people tend to earn 3 to 4% more money from jobs than average people do(1), which can be anywhere around $230,000 more(1). People who are beautiful tend to just do better in the workplace. As Heather Hunman of Business Insider says: "There have been many studies that demonstrate that people who are more attractive are more successful when it comes to business. This means not only in job interviews, but also in the workplace."(1).

Argument 2: Miscellaneous Perks

Aside from getting advantages in the workplace, there are other benefits to being beautiful. A study conducted by Harvard Psychologist Dr. Nancy Etcoff concluded that women who were attractive get more fuss from mothers when they are babies, receive more commendations from teachers as intelligent and sociable, more leniance from police officers, jurors, and judges, and are more likely to receive help from strangers if they're broken down on the side of the road(2). While not nearly as major as the massive economic perks, they still give critical advantages to those who are beautiful, as compared to those who aren't as such.

Argument 3: Rakin' in the Happiness

While all these perks I've described are good and all, what does any of it matter if you're not happy? Too late, economists at UT-Austin as well as other foreign universities concluded that beautiful people are generally happier than average or not-so-attractive people(3). The correlating factor, as they found, was based mostly off of their economic successes and advantages.

Because my opponent fails to present a compelling argument, and I'm providing clear-cut statistics and evidence for my side, I urge you to negate the resolution. I pass the floor to my opponent at this point and wish her the best of luck with the rest of the debate.

Sources:
(1) - http://articles.businessinsider.com...
(2) - http://news.bbc.co.uk...
(3) - http://yourlife.usatoday.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
rross

Pro

Thank you for your comments, Zaradi. What an impressive and slightly intimidating debating record you have! Ninety-seven victories! You couldn't have put together a record like that if you couldn't read resolutions properly. I can only imagine why so much of what you wrote is off topic. I will make some remarks about your “arguments” and then return to my original points, the debate proper.

Unattractive, attractive, average and beautiful: Zaradi’s arguments 1-3

Zaradi, “average-looking” is not a euphemism for “ugly”. It means normal. Normal women are attractive.

Average (adjective): of the usual or ordinary standard, level, or quantity; having qualities that are seen as typical of a particular person or thing (1)

Attractive (adjective): (of a person) appealing to look at; sexually alluring (2)

If you imagine a normal curve where the x-axis is attractiveness. The large ‘nose’ of the curve includes average-looking women, at least 80-90%, and all are attractive. Down one end is the tiny proportion of exceptionally beautiful women and down the other are the unattractive ones.

It is a sign of your compassion that you wanted to drag the tiny proportion of unattractive women into the debate when they weren’t mentioned in the resolution. Most unattractive women have painful and debilitating health problems, of course. After all, some men will have sex with livestock when women aren’t around (hearsay), so a woman has to be pretty repellant to be unattractive to all men. We’re talking open, weeping sores, foul odors, crusted-up rashes, or really vile habits.

For these unfortunate women, being unattractive to men is the least of their problems. It’s no surprise that they have trouble with employment, promotion, teachers, that nobody will help them in the street and so on. Therefore, any study that includes these women (even as a small proportion of a sample) will show that attractiveness correlates to all those things you mentioned.

For example, the Hamermesh study which informed your “argument 1” claims about greater income for attractive people, didn’t include average-looking women at all. It compared the top third of women (31% “good looking” and only 3% “strikingly beautiful”) with the bottom 15% (2% “homely” and 13% “quite plain”). The middle 50% were excluded entirely. Most importantly, perhaps, the results for the “strikingly beautiful” 3% were not analyzed separately, but included in with the “good-looking” group.(3)

In argument 2 you wrote “women who were attractive get more fuss from mothers when they are babies” Hilarious. Surely the study actually showed that more attractive babies get more fuss from mothers? And what makes a baby attractive? A smiling baby is more attractive than a crying one; a healthy baby is more attractive than a sick one. It seems more likely that the causal relationship goes the other way: babies who get more attention from their mothers are healthier and happier and therefore more “attractive” than other babies.

None of the studies that informed your sources examined the difference between average-looking and exceptionally beautiful women. Most included unattractive people, and none are relevant.

For women, it's better to be average-looking than exceptionally beautiful

Point 1

You say that attractive women don’t all draw in jerks. I agree. Many attractive women do like to be approached by men. We can agree there too. Lots of GREAT guys date attractive women. Yes, Zaradi, life is good for ordinarily attractive women.

It’s a different story for exceptionally beautiful women, though. It’s often hard to get sympathy from men on this, because men imagine being continually harassed by sexually-interested women and they honestly can’t see a down side to it. Maybe instead try instead imagining being mobbed by a bunch of rude and desperate men and you’ll get more of a feeling for it (unless you’re gay in which case go back to imagining women). Because these rude, harassing men are not men that the beautiful woman is attracted to.

You said, “We men may be pretty stupid sometimes, but we can pick up fairly obvious hints, like a woman yelling "Get the f*ck away from me!”

Well exactly. You would get the message, and you are exactly the sort of man a beautiful woman would like to meet: intelligent and courteous. Unfortunately, other men don’t behave as well, and these lesser men are the men that women want to avoid but can't.

You want sources? Here’s one. Please note that I am referencing a recent study in an academic journal and not, ahem, a “survey” sponsored by Elle (your reference 1) or a 1999 book review (your reference 2) or whatever your reference 3 was (it didn’t open and I couldn’t locate it by other means).

Perilloux, Easton & Buss (2011) found that

  • women tend underestimate men’s sexual interest, but
  • men tend to overestimate the interest women show in them and that
  • “the magnitude of men’s overperception of women’s sexual interest was predicted by the women’s physical attractiveness.” (4)

In other words, men are always erroneously believing that extremely beautiful women are sexually attracted to them. Which is why they can be such “pricks” (your word).

Point 2

In Israel, military service is mandatory for everyone over the age of 18. Men do three years and women do two years and then it’s a month a year until you’re 35. In those first few years when they’re out of school, people are very susceptible and whatever they learn in those years, including habits of mind, tends to stay with them. This is why (and again, it’s my own observation, so sorry) in Israel people will always respond to problems with military solutions. Because the whole population has been trained to think that way.

It’s the same with exceptionally beautiful women. From the age of, say, 16, they learn that they have immense power and that this power comes from their personal attractiveness. In theory, they don’t need to internalize this in any way. They don’t need to value it. In reality, they can’t avoid being psychologically affected. Nor can the Israelis as a general rule, no matter how tough and smart they may be as individuals. This is why exceptionally beautiful women tend to obsess over appearance and value themselves only in relationship to it.

Segal-Caspi, Roccas & Sagiv (2012) found that, when compared with average-looking women, “the beautiful strive for conformity rather than independence and for self-promotion rather than tolerance.” (5) Which was exactly my point about famous women in the previous post.

In terms of men not liking resources and power being taken from them, no matter how beautiful the snatchee, you responded with arguments relating to sexual relationships. Zaradi. There’s a big difference between sexual relationships and work relationships. You really can’t compare them in any way. Yes, men and women are happy with sexual domination and submission, and both men and women will make various economic agreements with their life partners. This has nothing to do with power dynamics at work. At work, a man will help a beautiful woman in order to get her gratitude or to have her closer around the office. He will never help her to be in a position where she can compete properly or get ahead of him, and if it seems like she will by other means then he will find a way to use her sex against her. This is the way that competitive men are. You just need to look at the rate of women as CEOs and politicians and in any desirable position of power to see that women are underrepresented, and those that are there are far from being mere ornaments. To get ahead, women have to go up against men and not simply bask in their approval.

1. http://oxforddictionaries.com...

2. http://oxforddictionaries.com...

3. https://webspace.utexas.edu...

4. http://pss.sagepub.com...

5. http://pss.sagepub.com...

Zaradi

Con

Ignoring the blatant insults in her opening paragraph, my opponent is not only guilty of using mostly new arguments and information in the last round (conduct violation), but she's also shifting the goalposts of this debate by skewing the lines between average and attractive, making almost all ground on this debate for me impossible to access. Let's go line by line.

She starts by claiming I use "average-looking" as a euphemism for "ugly". I did no such thing. I'd ask where I did so, but alas. Last round.

This is also where she skews the debate to impossibility for me by defining average looking as attractive. As she's supposed to be defending average-looking females and I'm supposed to be more attractive females, this gives me literally no ground to advocate for on the resolution. This highly abusive tactic is insanely unfair, and I thought this was only found in the realms of high-school debating. Sad day I have to deal with it here, without the safety of my theory shells. Oh well. Regardless, her attempts at making my arguments off-topic by skewing the debate should not stand, as it a) is shifting the goalposts of the debate from the resolution, making HER arguments off-topic, and b) is insanely abusive to me as it gives me nothing to advocate for, thus ruining the purpose of the debate.

Her description of ugly women is rather detailed and grotesque, and highly irrelevant.

Her evaluation of the argument not including the "average looking" is highly interesting, though. Even if it's true, though, it doesn't address the arguments 58% of women who were more attractive received higher ratings than those who were average looking and below and the argument that more attractive people make 3% to 4% more income than those who are average or bad looking. So my point still stands.

My opponent says the causal relationship to my second actually runs backwards, that babies who get more attention are more attractive, but 1) that doesn't do anything to undermine the argument, 2) there's no proof to her claim, whereas my proof is backed by a Harvard psychologist (think I win that one), and 3) it doesn't address the rest of the arguments made there, such as above average looking women have easier times in court and with law enforcement. The rest of my arguments still stand.

Y'know, for someone who claims that my arguments are really bad and off-topic, she seems to be having a hard time addressing them all. That's two out of the three arguments that she failed to a) adequetly respond to and b) address fully. This gives clear benefits that are exclusive to more attractive women, which means you negate the resolution really easily.

She claims that none of my sources examine the difference between average and better looking women (they clearly do), and that it includes unattractive people and thus aren't relevant (false, it makes it more indicative of the truth as it examines the full scale of attractiveness). And with that, all arguments against my case are refuted. Resolution being negated. But let's keep things going and address her defenses.

Again her defense of her first point relies on her skewing the debate to mean average is attractive (which I already explained why she shouldn't be allowed to do that) so that defense is automatically denied.

But instead of actually addressing my argument she dances around it without actually responding to it. Not all EXCEPTIONALLY BEAUTIFUL (applies the same way as my previous argument) hate guys talking to them and approaching them. She never warrants why this is the case for ALL women, and thus her lumping of all women into one big massive hate-fest against guys falls as massively unwarranted.

And you say that women can't avoid men, but never warrant this either. Women can clearly avoid men by leaving when they attempt to approach her or by telling the men to back off either verbally or physically (it's universally known among men that a slap means you're doing something wrong. How they react to it is up to them).

Her new source (by the way, I have no idea what Perilloux, Easton & Buss means, and thus cannot ascertain the credability of who you are citing) should not be weighed prima facie because it's posted in the last round, and thus is highly unfair to me who posted my information beforehand. But even if it is weighed, it really doesn't have all that much of an impact on the round because women can still solve back for this overprediction of their interest by disabusing them of the notion. Right after that, though, she fallaciously claims that because of her source, ALL MEN believe that ALL beautiful women are sexually attracted to them, which is a massively flawed claim as a) her source proves nothing like this, and b) it's clearly not true because not all men believe that all beautiful women are sexually into them.

All my arguments against her point 1 still stand. She won't be getting any offense off of that argument.

As for her second point, she starts with a tyrade against the militaristic nature of Israel (Objection! Relevance, your honor). She then uses that to try and segway into a point about how beautiful women obsess over their looks and value themselves, yet never responds to my argument about why this is a bad thing. She just assumes that this is bad, yet never explains why this is bad. Because she failed to do so, and the information she provided that never explained so was new as well, that point gets dropped.

She then accuses me of using sexual relationship points to address work relationships. While I did mention the difference between sexual preferences, that was not my sole point. You can easily refer back to where I mention that females can be the bread-winners for their family and that the men can be the stay-at-home parents, which has nothing to do with sex. Her refusal to read through the entirety of my arguments against her case will be her downfall here.

She then goes on to say that men will help women get ahead up to the point that they are getting to move past them, and then will suddenly change tact and work against them and become sexist against them. Not only is this a brand new argument, but its claim requires massive amounts of warrant, and she doesn't provide a single word of warrant. There's no reason to look at this point, even if you gave it weight in the round.

With the last of her arguments refuted, the round breaks down really simply for voters:

1) She warrants none of her claims made in her case, and all of her sources come in during the last round, which is incredibly unfair to me.
2) She shifts the goalposts for this debate to a manner that excludes me from having any ground in the resolution by trying to define average as attractive.
3) She drops the vast majority of the arguments I make in my case, only picking and chosing from a select few to address.
4) She never fully responds to the arguments I make against her case.

Overall, this is an easy vote for the negative debater, and thus I urge voters to vote for con in this debate.

Thanks for reading! :D
Debate Round No. 3
63 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Eh? That wasn't my opinion at all.

I was speculating on HER perspective.

I don't think that decision was corrupt. In many respects it was completely appropriate (although not in ALL respects).

Here's a thread on it:

http://debate.org...
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
So instead of fighting for the correction of a massively corrupt decision against her ability to work, she should change her looks?

And I thought you were for women's rights.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
I think for this particular woman, she would absolutely agree that "it's better to be average-looking than exceptionally beautiful..." LOL

http://www.cnn.com...
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
"I found this quote of hers from the first round to be rather egotistical and humorous:"

I felt the same way when I first read it lol
Posted by rross 4 years ago
rross
You finally got something right, Zaradi: I AM a great person ;-)
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
No worries Z, I've done it too.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Lol Ryu, yeah I was kinda getting ticked by round 3, but I didn't realize it showed that much.

Also, not to be insulting as I'm sure pro's a great person and all, but I found this quote of hers from the first round to be rather egotistical and humorous:

"To think that she missed out on my company and conversation as a direct result of being beautiful!"
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
Pro failed to carry the burden. Her opening arguments had some relevant observation but they originated from personal experience. As her round 1 statement claimed: "This is just something I've observed in life."
I think Con adequately pointed out that the phenomena is not necessarily a Macro-event. This, more than any other objection, dominates the burden. If Pr cannot prove that the phenomenon happens to everyone, then we must conclude that she experienced a fluke.
I do not believe Rross carried this burden to satisfaction. Since the burden was defeated by objection, Con wins he argument points.

Rros wins the spelling and Grammar points. I copied both opponent's arguments into Microsoft Word for a quick spell/syntax check. Rross showed two misspellings and a few minor sentence structure errors.
Con, on the other hand, would benefit from a spell check. It was a free point to take. I'm always surprised to see people cast it away so needlessly.

Conduct goes to Con. While no actual rules are established to prohibit new arguments in the last round, I also find the practice very distasteful. It's the equivalent of a drive-by shooting.

Sources are tied at the moment. I have not reviewed them yet.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
RFD:

No offense to rross, but after reading this debate, I find it strange that anyone voted for Pro at all. Most of Zaradi's arguments went unaddressed, and even when they were, they were poorly addressed. Zaradi was right to turn some of his opponent's arguments against her (ie., beautiful women get more attention, job opportunities, etc.). Not once did he claim "average-looking" women were "ugly" like he was accused of, but even if he did, it doesn't matter. His arguments stood to reason higher than rross', but even if they didn't, the burden of proof is entirely on Pro.

Zaradi completely refuted rross' arguments, which were nothing but stories of personal experience with no accompanying evidence for the entirety of round 2. These, as Zaradi pointed out, have no place in a formal debate. Her only serious arguments (and sources) were presented in round 3, the last round, which is normally frowned upon. Rross, I suggest making your debates longer than three rounds, skipping all the useless arguments and getting to the good ones sooner.

I gave Zaradi conduct because of rross' rude behavior in the last round (not to mention posting new arguments and sources in the last round). Overall, this was a really one-sided debate.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Here's an example for you.

http://www.forbes.com...

Kat Cole worked at Hooters when she got started...now she is president of Cinnabon at the age of 34.

I'm going to be a bit frank and somewhat vicious here. I would rate her as a 7 or so, maybe an 8 based on that picture. I've seen far more attractive women 10 years older than Kat Cole, and she is posing in a professional photo. However, she was able to use her looks to start at Hooters, and from what I read she worked her a$$ off to climb the corporate ladder...indeed, the ENTIRE ARTICLE IS ABOUT HOW MUCH WORK SHE PUT INTO HER JOB, NOT HER LOOKS.

Kat Cole is an average woman who put in enough effort to look attractive, enough to get noticed. From there, she succeeded because she invested far more time into other aspects of her life. She is the archetype of what PRO is arguing.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
rrossZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro's insults and new last round arguments. Arguments to Con for easily dismissing Pro's anecdotal case and providing relevant information concerning economic and social benefits of the attractive over the less so.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
rrossZaradiTied
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: Pro opened with little more than anecdotal arguments, which con countered with actual statistics. Pro tried to turn the tide via semantics and semi-relevant counter arguments, but con wasn't having any of that. I do feel that Con lost his temper in the last round and so he argued with a level of hyperbole that only served to make his final round sound weaker than it would have been, but other than that I can't say I'm convinced that it's better to be average than exceptionally beautiful. Arguments to Con
Vote Placed by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
rrossZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
rrossZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I had a decent idea of what Pro intended to debate but the poorly crafted resolution backed primarily by anecdotal evidence wasn't enough. Pro failed to uphold her burden. While Con had a few flaws in debating, his refutation of Pro's first round was thorough and spot on and enough to negate. Conduct for Pro's insults. I don't think I've ever seen someone so sneaky with the insults. She starts off by complimenting Zaradi's debating record and then laments the fact that someone with his record missed her point entirely. It didn't seem like she was frustrated (which is excusable to a certain degree) but rather willfully manipulating and insulting.
Vote Placed by Chicken 4 years ago
Chicken
rrossZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB Baba on second half of RFD
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
rrossZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter DebaterAgent.
Vote Placed by DebaterAgent 4 years ago
DebaterAgent
rrossZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Really close debate; but I have to go with Con. Out of 5 i would give rross a 4 and Zaradi a 4.3 it's really close. Good job to both of you. Probably the best debate yet.
Vote Placed by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
rrossZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by BA_BA_BA 4 years ago
BA_BA_BA
rrossZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used rude language and did not argue well.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
rrossZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: While being a difficult battle to judge, due to Zaradis impressive persuasiveness, I still have to side with rross on this debate, Zaradi is very vague in catorgrizing what is exceptionally beautiful and concludes attractiveness is exclusive only to exceptionally beautiful women, An average looking woman can still be attractive. but he seems to think that he can define exceptionally beautiful under the same guise as being attractive, like attractiveness is exclusive only to exceptionaly beautiful women, it isn't. An average looking woman can also be attractive without being exceptionally beautiful. Plus his argument for more beauty more money, simply isn't true.