The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is makeup a good thing?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2013 Category: Fashion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,653 times Debate No: 41763
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




No, makeup is not a good thing. For one, it can cause many skin diseases if overused or not used carefully. shows that some makeup can be hazardous to your health.

Also, makeup is usually used because girls feel insecure about their appearance, so they try to cover up their natural features with makeup. Not only does this cause them to stay insecure, people can get compared when they wear makeup, and not, by being told "you aren't pretty without makeup. Someone named Al. K has proven this phrase has been said to people on

Though people say that products such as mascara bring out your eyes, foundation improves your skin tone, or anything like that, and they think it makes them look prettier. Most of the time, it gets overused or used wrong to the point where it doesn't help, and only makes them look worse.

Finally, it takes a long time to put on. Have you heard of girls running late because they had to do their hair and makeup? Girls take a long time doing unnecessary makeup, so they can be prepared, and they end up running late. The article proves this.


All the lads disagree with con's argument for the following reasons:

Yes, it can lead to skin disease if overused or not applied carefully. Cake can lead to diabetes with overeating or if too much sugar is added into the mix. However, cake is delicious when done well and is feesible in moderation. Thus, all the lads would not give up cake because it can cause obesity and accept responsibility when baking. A ladette would, in turn, approach makeup in a similar manner.

All the lads disagree with with makeup being used because girls are insecure. All the lads would, thus, gingerly consider that con might be insecure and that the whole basis of her argument is insecurity. However, the lads would like to establish that this is only for the debates sake and to undermine con's argument. This is because con's argument, based on the insecurity argument, is a subjective fallacy. Especially with the word "usually". The lads have known ladettes to have worn makeup because they like the ceremony that comes with it, or, as AI. K, a prophet of our time, has pointed out, because it enhances a ladettes features. All the lads would further stipulate that the lads rarely walk around like a badly dressed smelly jesus man. Lads would suggest that it is because lads take pride in their appearance. Much the same can be said for ladettes.

Time management is not makeup's fault. Ladettes must take this into consideration. A lad, who is not part of the NRA, doesn't shoot a man in the face and blame it on the gun. A ladette who is late for work should, therefore, not blame it on the makeup. Con may argue that society makes her put the makeup on and is thus late for that reason, but makeup is not obligatory at the end of the day and a it will be the ladettes insecurity which makes her late. But if a ladette arrives at seven o'clock in the morning to work, with well presented warpaint, boss man knows she means business. All the lads hasten to add that the daily mail has as much valuable content as gone off dog meat and suggest con to find better sources.

All the lads accept that ladettes can apply to much smear, but that is the ladette's fault. Makeup is enhancement, much like a bespoke Saville suit. The lads will also concede that without it, some ladettes look dirt, but that's what society has done to a lad's perception of beauty. Damn you society... and biology.
Debate Round No. 1


Now to rebut against my opponents arguments.

First of all, with your argument about moderation, most people, and I'm saying most not all, don't know how much is too much, and tend to over-do it. Sometimes, it isn't recognizable but over time, too much makeup use has effects on your skin. Even if you don't put on too much, makeup over time will start to have harmful effects on your skin if worn on a regular basis.

When I said "girls usually wear makeup because they are insecure," I meant exactly that. Not all girls wear it because they are insecure, but I have known many girls who have worn it for this purpose, and therefore, was a true statement.

When girls are late to events, whether it be work, school, or a date, it is usually because they are putting on their makeup. If girls spent less time with makeup, they would have less of a chance of being late, and at the moment I'm not including the other factors. Now, when you say that if they went with no makeup, that would make them feel more insecure, this doesn't work well for this argument. Take this scenario: A woman has a very important meeting to go to. When she wakes up, she puts on her makeup, making it look extra special. She notices that time has flown by and she is already twenty minutes late. By the time she gets to work, the meeting it half over, yet she looks nice. Is this woman going to feel insecure? Yes. She just lost her professional reputation. Time-management is a skill people should have, but it doesn't always work. Time has slipped out of everybody's hands at one point or another, and when putting on makeup, this is a common occurrence.

In the article: it talks about how much money woman spend on makeup. While it does have ads for cheap makeup, more women are going to reach for the more expensive makeup, in order for it to have the effect they want. Another study shows that most of the makeup bought, isn't even used. So, makeup can also take up hard earned money, when they could use this money for something useful. I know, this argument could be made for any product that isn't a necessity, but I am bringing it up because of the fact most of it isn't used, and therefore, most of the money gone into makeup is wasted.


All the lads have left. It's just me an you and our intellectual lightsabres.

Con's only reasonable argument that can be conceded is its physical deterioration of one's skin. However, research into this field indicates that the effects can be negated by the use of certain mineral makeups, moisturising and living a balanced an healthy lifestyle. Thus, as is the basis of one's argument, it comes down to personal responsibility. Sun damage to skin is far more harmful, but one is expected to use sun cream to prevent this, rather than complain about how the sun makes them look old, gives them moles and then cancer.

Con states that because of their own personal experiences of women applying makeup because of insecurity, thus makes con an authority on the subject. Much to the contrary, con has committed a fallacy of generalisation, due to a purely subjective opinion. The use of "usually" implies that insecurity is mostly the case, yet con has shown no actual evidence of this being the case outside their own expert experience of having "known many girls" and because AI. K had said so. Saying that a potato is chair does not give basis to the argument that a potato is a chair. One could state that one has known many girls who do not use it for insecurity, but using this as a basis of an argument would be fallacious, as it provides no evidence to support the claim. Con also makes the laughable point that makeup keeps people insecure, as if it is infallibly connected to why people are insecure. In truth insecurities are not decided by an outside stimulus, but one's reaction to that stimulus. One can thus argue that con is subjectively arguing from the insecure entitled point of view of those who apply makeup for those reasons and do not assume personal responsibility for their own insecurities. If one is late to hand in work, because they have ADHD, they can blame it on the ADHD, but ultimate responsibility lies with them.

Returning back to the point of responsibility, con blames makeup for being late to appointments and work. Although one concedes that it gives context to why someone may be late, it does not excuse it. Con makes the argument that makeup is bad because it makes people late. This is fallacious in the fact that makeup does not physically decide the outcome of one's time management. That person in particular does. No doubt many women are late to work having spent hours applying makeup that day. However, this does not excuse being tardy. She has lost her professional reputation, because her ineffectual management of time and that is a strong basis when it comes to losing a professional reputation.
Con also uses 'In Style' in attempts to bolster her argument and like the Daily Mail, it simply not an effective pretext for making such an argument. Where is its peer review for starters? Indeed, arguing that women spend too much money on makeup is not the fault of makeup. If a man buys a baby alligator and the alligator grows to an adult and eats the man, do we blame the alligator? No. The man was prepared to buy it in the first place. Again, con appears to have no concept of personal responsibility and at least with makeup, we can argue that frivolous spending on it contributes to its benefits to the economy.

Finally, con takes my point that it is a "ladette's insecurity which makes her late" is taking it out of context to my wider argument and makes a feeble gesture to undermine it, with the case that insecurity is inexorably linked with the application of makeup, with little understanding of what insecurity actually entails. It is actually a far more deeper mental state than wanting to look pretty and those who are insecure are insecure for their own reasons and not because makeup causes it.

In conclusion, con's argument is riddled with subjective generalisations, little thought is put to her limited points, and she has relatively little understanding of the concepts she is fallaciously arguing.
Debate Round No. 2


All of your points can be refuted.

First off, you say that some makeup can help your skin, not hurt it. Moisturizers and such. Well, lotion can do what those makeup products you are talking about, and without all the defects. Though my point still stands that things such as eye shadows, mascara, excreta, can harm your skin and most likely will over time.

Yes, with different experiences, people will have different views. What I was trying to say, was that there is a majority of girls who wear it because they are insecure. Based on personal experience, I know more who wear it for that purpose, than because they take pride. Also, the makeup sometimes makes them insecure, if they weren't at first, because they will get compared from with makeup, to without, and the girl will think without it, they are no longer pretty. This was a point that may have been made, but was ignored if it was.

Third, I wanted to refute your point of comparing a girl wearing makeup and being late because of it, to an assaulter. Think about this: If they didn't have the gun, the chance of them assaulting someone would be lessened. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, because there are other factors, but taking out that one factor, will lessen the chance. Same thing with the makeup. If the girl didn't put on her makeup, that's one less factor, and less chance of her being late. You may say this isn't the makeup's fault, but makeup is designed in a way that if you don't put it on correctly, it will look terrible. So, you must take your time. In that way, yes, it is the makeup's fault it is hard and takes long to put on.

Also, yes, I agree, it's the woman's choice to buy the makeup, even if it's expensive. What I was mainly saying, is that most of it is wasted, since most of the makeup in the bottom of the bottle/container, doesn't get used. If makeup is supposed to be worth the money, it shouldn't be robbing you of your hard earned dollars, especcially when most of it goes down the drain.

One last point. I never said it was her insecurity that made her late. I said that she wanted to look her best, so she spent some extra time putting on makeup. That in no way says she is insecure about the way she looks, she just wanted to do something extra because it was a big day.


Con considers that all my points can refuted, but as refuted none of them. Merely opposing some and leaving others like that of responsibility and justifies them with the same subjective manner that characterized them to begin with.

Moreover, her argument for skin damage does not even meet sufficient references to support them. Those previously stated, considered that it "may" cause skin cancer, ultimately rendering the authenticity of her argument flawed in its concept. I must concede, however, that I phrased my earlier point badly. I did not mean that they negated skin deterioration. Merely that they negated the damage caused by traditional makeup.

I must also hasten to add that metaphors are idioms best not taken in literal meaning. It defeats the point of them. A point which con has failed to see.

All subsequent arguments then collapse, as pro has not considered personal responsibility or my point pertaining to it.

Thank you for clearing up that final detail.
Debate Round No. 3


Going against what you say, is refuting the points, and that's exactly what I did.

Now, I will admit I worded my last argument in a manner that wasn't the best. What I was trying to get across is that traditional makeup can cause skin problems, and over time, it is most likely they will show. this video shows this.

I did say, maybe not in the direct manner, that yes, it is their responsibility to be to work on time. Though, one of the factors of them being late is the makeup, and if you take that factor out, there is the lesser chance of them being late.

Finally, metaphors are used to make a point, by using a different situation to make someone understand the situation they are in. So, you were comparing the two, and I felt it necessary to speak on it.

So now, my arguments have reason, and have not collapsed.


I concede that con does have reasonable video proof evidence. Yet, con has not considered my argument that I previously corrected, in that these effects can be negated. Again, con has has attacked my argument of responsibility, but has made no attempt to deconstruct it. I haste to add that many factors and variables come into play when being late, but no matter what they might be, the choice to do them confers one with responsibility. If the sentiment of my metaphor was disturbing then I must suggest that con realise that i do not find it questionable, as it was not to disturb, but give context. Picking it apart was, in addition, an illogical reaction if this were the case. The only alternative was that you misinterpreted it and I apologise for not giving it correct context and readability. However, the fact remains that your argument does not deconstruct mine, that I have successfully deconstructed yours and that despite your attempts to bolster it with any clout, it still collapses under its own generalisations and fallacies.
Finally, I would like to reinforce my point that makeup, when used correctly, enhances beauty. The fault of its miss use is laid plainly on the laps that those who miss use and mishandle it. Makeup is tool to be used for the good of humankind!

I would like to thank con for the debate regardless of its outcome.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.