The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points

It's Time to Establish a Fashion Police Force

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,873 times Debate No: 9313
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (12)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

"Buy the best quality you can afford" has always been a worthy maxim. Of course, you pay for what you get and items produced by manufacturers that have a reputation for superior quality and flair, generically described as ‘designer goods', naturally command a premium price.

Unfortunately, however, these manufacturer's logos are sometimes prominently displayed on the exterior of their products. By purchasing such an item, the owner is saying:

"Look at me. I am vulgar and pretentious and have absolutely no taste or panache whatsoever, but never mind that, I am successful and can afford to wear the best quality clothing / jewellery / watch / shoes / sunglasses that money can buy."

It's bad enough to flaunt one's wealth by wearing gaudy designer clothes, but what if you are a common and garish individual and haven't won the lottery or married a Premiership footballer or you don't run a business peddling drugs to schoolchildren or if you aren't a spiv employed by an investment bank to swindle future pensioners out of their hard-earned retirement funds?

Well, if you can't afford the genuine article, you can always buy a fake. Now, what the owners of such items are saying is:

"Look at me. I am wearing genuine designer gear, honest I am, but don't come too close because then you'll be able to see that it is actually made from cheap nylon and is getting all tatty and frayed at the edges."

Pathetic.

Please look at the two men in this picture:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk...

Which one of them do you think was born in to an aristocratic family and was educated at Eton and Oxford? What's that I hear? It's the one in the background with his hand down his pants because his hoody has got designer labels all over it and, therefore, he must be the one with the most class.

Wrong! It's the one in the foreground (David Cameron, Leader of the Opposition). His suit doesn't have a label on the lapel but you can rest assured it was purchased from a bespoke tailor in Saville Row and cost him thousands of Pounds whereas, to me, the gentleman in the background looks as though he acquired his entire wardrobe from some dodgy geezer who goes round the pubs knocking out moody gear from a carrier bag.

Thankfully, however, those guardians of style and sophistication, those paragons understated elegance: the French and the Italians; have stepped up to the mark and have started prosecuting the owners of fake designer gear.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

I strongly believe that other governments should follow the lead of France and Italy and establish Fashion Police Forces in order to rid our streets of those uncouth poseurs who go about wearing designer rip-offs.

Thank you.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate and shall offer my own take on this issue.

While I agree with my opponent on nearly everything that he has said, I disagree with his way of going about doing it. A Police Force is simply not enough, as these miserable wretches of society need more disciplining than a simple police force can handle. Furthermore, my opponent's link only showed that the French and Italians are only persecuting people for BUYING fake designer goods when they should really be punishing people for WEARING them.

This blatantly confirms my long held suspicion over the complete moral bankruptcy of the French and Italians, despite the fact that their salad dressings are so delicious. Perhaps *too* delicious.

Why should the manufacturers and distributors of fake goods be punished when the real blame lies with those who wear them? After all, the real crime here is the effect their false facade has on the rest of society.

The police force that my opponent describes is unfit for a matter of such great significance. Only with a ninja-army could we carry this plan out to fruition. My reasons are as follows:

A. The existence of a police force would be too out in the open. There will be resistance and attempts to bypass their authority. A secret ninja army could operate swiftly and silently.

B. Police must operate within legal limits. A ninja army could simply assassinate the posers without warning, and through bloodshed, other people will start to get the idea.

C. Police jurisdiction has limits. A Ninja Army will have global reach.

Thus, I am against my opponent's proposal for a Fashion Police force modeled after the ones in Italy and France.

I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

With many thanks to Kleptin for his considered rebuttal, I should like to respond to each of the points he raised as follows:

A - I can see the advantages of a secretive undercover government agency that operates in the shadows, acting on tip-offs and executing summary justice on forged fashion offenders and, therefore, I'll let this one slide.

B - Yes, this will spread fear and suspicion amongst members the counterfeit clothing community - I like it, though I think that killing offenders may be a bit harsh. Perhaps, at least in the case of first-time offenders, they should merely be stripped of their replica tops and pants, which will then be burnt on the spot. This will mean that the faux-fashion felons will be forced to walk home semi-naked, much to their embarrassment and the amusement of decent, law-abiding citizens.

C – A cross-border ninja fashion militia has an appeal, but would run the risk of becoming unaccountable, and potentially open to corruption from sleazy Chinese and Indian factory owners who might employ geisha girls to persuade the ninjas to turn a blind eye to wearers of their own products. Otherwise, it is a good idea.

Perhaps the best compromise would be to have a uniformed fashion police, modelled on the French and Italian concept in order to provide a deterrent and have them backed up by ninja snatch squads who will operate below the radar of the law and free from the constraints of public accountability?

Thank you.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and will now conclude this debate.

A- I am glad that my opponent agrees with me on this point.

B- As a compromise, I would agree to the stripping as a warning, but it would have to be carried out swiftly and after knocking them out with poisoned blow-darts or nunchaku blows to the back of the head. However, in order to maintain secrecy, they should be killed immediately upon second infraction.

C- It goes without saying that sleazy Chinese an Indian factory owners would be assassinated as well. The geisha girls are no worry, because ninjas are inhuman, emotionless killing machines.

I must disagree with my opponent's proposal for the fashion police in conjunction with this ninja task force because only the ninja task force is necessary. Having both operate, especially one legally and the other illegally, would lead to internal disputes over jurisdiction and such. Since the ninja army is the more effective one, I propose that instead.

I thank my opponent and the audience. Everyone who votes CON gets a geisha girl. Everyone who votes PRO will be visited by a ninja assassin.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by numa 7 years ago
numa
i'm sorry i had to award points to pro here lol rfd coming soon maybe
Posted by Bnesiba 7 years ago
Bnesiba
but couldn't you have a fashion police who were trained as ninjas?
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
UBERMEGAROFL. This is a masterpiece.
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
"Authorities in France and Italy are not just targeting those who produce and sell fakes but also those who buy them."

Never going to France nor Italy.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Eggleston, you've done it again.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Udel 8 months ago
Udel
brian_egglestonKleptinTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro says we need a fashion police force, Con says this is not enough. Pro agues that COn's proposal is too harsh. Pro also asks for ninjas in addition to police but Con says only ninjas are needed. Just because only ninjas are "needed" doesnt discredit all of Pro's arguments for why a fashion police force is useful even if not needed.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
brian_egglestonKleptinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by rawrxqueen 6 years ago
rawrxqueen
brian_egglestonKleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Mixer 7 years ago
Mixer
brian_egglestonKleptinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by numa 7 years ago
numa
brian_egglestonKleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
brian_egglestonKleptinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
brian_egglestonKleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
brian_egglestonKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
brian_egglestonKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
brian_egglestonKleptinTied
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