The Instigator
Maryam_mosawy
Pro (for)
The Contender
Astartes
Con (against)

Never judge a book by it's cover

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Maryam_mosawy has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2018 Category: People
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 195 times Debate No: 106986
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Maryam_mosawy

Pro

People should never judge a person by how they look or how they act differently.
Sometimes they may look violent and aggressive, or sometimes they may look sweet and innocent, but most of the times it can be the opposite.
Astartes

Con

I want to come out first and foremost to thank Pro for putting this debate out there, given I hate this idiom with a passion.

To begin the discourse I would like to bring in a little bit of context for the topic.

Definitions:

[1] Nev - er [ADV] - At no time in the past or future; on no occasion; not ever:

[2] [The idiom under which this discussion takes place.] Don't [Do not] Judge a Book by it's Cover [Idiom] - Don't judge a book by its cover means not to judge people or things by what they look like from the outside. People shouldn't be judged by how they look but be judged by their actions.

With this in mind, let the audience be aware that in order for Pro to win this discourse, the condition [1] Never must be true, in the sense that someone or something can never be judged by it's appearance. For the inferred intentions of Pro, the criteria will be limited to people, or individuals, rather than objects or organisms.

I hate to operate on such stringent parameters, so I will be attempting to demonstrate, that, according to modern psychology and statistics, on a broader scale one can in fact 'judge a book by it's cover'.

First impressions are a fundamental component of human interactions, and many, including myself, believe that an individual's appearance is a metaphorical window into someone's inner traits. The manner in which someone conveys themselves is almost universally indicative of personal desires, perceptions, and personality. This could be through physical appearance or the atmosphere around said individual.

According to a study conducted by a team at the University of Colorado, it was deemed that appearances indeed could be accurately assessed for a variety of things, such as intelligence and basic personality traits. While this may not be to the degree of exact details, it still disproves the notion that is the topic. The team used a testing group of 1600 hundred subjects, [All of which were twins] easily large enough to account for a variety of distinct personality traits and intelligences.

Relevant data about IQ and predispositions was retrieved from a variety of databases, such as QIMR and LTS [Twin Data Sets. SAT and other relevant scores were obtained as well. Another set of randomly selected raters was used to 'judge' composite photographs of the twins. In a set of 15 second exposures, the raters were asked to 'judge' a variety of qualities from only the subjects faces [Personally I think this cut out some relevant data...].

The result?

The 'raters' [For lack of a better word] were surprisingly accurate when pairing the individuals to general descriptions of intelligence and personality, be it extroversion vs introversion, or depression. The fact is, people convey themselves in ways that are proportional to their inner character. Extroversion is indicated by a tendency to be well groomed or a substantial use of cosmetics, while the opposite is true for introversion. When asked on how they inferred intelligence, raters called into aspect a variety of traits, be it hygiene, facial expression, or personal effects. Also, socio economic standings and neuroticism were accurately assessed as well.

Keep in mind, this was all gathered from 15 second exposures. What would be the outcome of longer periods of study and observation? Or if the 'raters' were allowed to view the entire individual, to assess clothing and physique?

This study, and a variety of others in the field of psychology, are showing that perhaps there is more to appearances than first imagined...

Sources:

[1] https://scholar.colorado.edu...
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] https://dictionary.cambridge.org...


Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by LogicalPen 5 months ago
LogicalPen
Or maybe they're just antisocial.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 5 months ago
FanboyMctroll
You are absolutely right, I stay clear of silent people they are the ones that usually bring the gun to school
Posted by WOLF.J 5 months ago
WOLF.J
Silent people are the ones with issues in particular, but don't judge them, they just need support
Posted by FanboyMctroll 5 months ago
FanboyMctroll
I totally agree with you, unfortunately for most first impressions is what makes or breaks the deal with them, like job interviews, first dates, seeing a stranger somewhere. Impressions dictate peoples behavior. It's also a profiling technique used by law enforcement.

I agree with you, but I believe in first impressions more, so it's better to be ready and dolled up the first time then getting the short end of the stick before you even opened your mouth or the person got to know you.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.