The Instigator
TruthGen
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
aburk903
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Nicki Minaj's butt is good and sexy

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 1 vote the winner is...
TruthGen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 561 times Debate No: 61448
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

TruthGen

Pro

Following my proposal on http://www.debate.org...

I propose debates that try to push the boundaries.

Well. I like Nicki Minaj's butt, i find it sexy and good. I mean, just look at Anaconda, jeez, it's yummy.

http://youtu.be...

Plus Sir Mix a-Lot said Nicki's Anaconda is a better version of his "Baby got Back" because he was not allowed to get the good butts back then when done. Now Anaconda, as he said, has the good butts.

You can see the interview here: http://youtu.be...
aburk903

Con

Thanks for the topic, TruthGen. I look forward to what promises to be an interesting debate.

Although sexiness is ultimately subjective to the individual, my contention is not with the sexiness of Nicki Minaj's butt. However, my opponent's topic is compound. In order for his position on this topic to be correct, he must prove that Nicki Minaj's butt is both good and sexy. If Nicki's butt fails to meet one of these two criteria, then his entire resolution is false. My contention is that Nicki Minaj's butt is not good. Nicki's butt is not good for a few ethical reasons.

1. Nicki's Butt Lessens The Value Of Natural Beauty
This is my weaker premise, as we must share the same values in regards to beauty to agree. Should one's entire perception of beauty involve artificiality as a higher form, then Nicki's butt would be exemplary. However, becoming a sex icon for unnatural beauty encourages women to make poor choices. Women who cannot afford proper medical aesthetic enhancement face many risks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

2. The Extravagance Of Butt Shots Is Unethical In Light Of Poverty
In a nation in which fifteen percent of the populous lives in poverty, it is unethical to spend money on artificial anal enhancement. To condone this type of behavior is to condone capitalism at its worst. Sexiness may be determined by where the individual's sexual idealism lies, but beauty is something more- and something that exists beyond one's physical appearance.

Because of the the negative idealism naturally associated with Nicki's butt and the unethical lifestyle it reflects, Nicki's butt is not good.
Debate Round No. 1
TruthGen

Pro

Let's begin with the rebuttals:

1. "Nicki's butt lessens the value of natural beauty"
This is not true because:
1.- The concept "Natural" is so abstract that you can easily find in shampoos. Everything has a natural origin. But I suppose you call natural beauty as "That beauty that didn't go through plastic surgery"
2.- Nicki is not the only celeberity that people look up to
3.- It shows a different type of butt. We need diversity, it is a beneficial thing.
4.- These women could take this risks even if Nicki's butt was "natural". What makes them look for "medical aesthetic enhancement" is the desire to look physically like their favorite celebrity.

2. "The extravagance of butt shots is unethical in light of poverty"
Basically everything we do can be seen as unethical in light of poverty. Just take a look at the Ecologic footprint.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
We consume more than we should, which is 2 hectaires per person. Yet in the USA there's an average consumption of 10 hectaires per person, is that because of Nicki's butt? I think not.

The problem here is that Nicki's butt is different from many other butts. We human beings tend to focus on those things that really stand up and look different. Our materialist behaviour and ever-consuming routine are so obvious and so normal, we don't really focus on the real impact.

Her butt is not the cause of poverty. And ethics are also subjective.

Now, i'll make my point:

Why Nicki's butt is good?
It is not only good in the moral sense (She is giving diversity, and enjoying butt-freedom). Her butt is also good because she can use it to sit down, which is an useful and yet natural action.
Her butt probably helped her raise money that she used for charity.

http://www.contactmusic.com...
http://mypinkfriday.com...
https://www.looktothestars.org...

But yet again, ethics are relative to subjectiveness

Why Nicki's butt is sexy?
As you said, sexiness is subjective. And you have no argument against her sexiness, so yeah, it is sexy.
aburk903

Con

I. Nicki And The Value Of Natural Beauty
1. Shampoo serves a constructive purpose: sanitation and health. Body modification does not serve this constructive purpose. Therefore, the comparison of unnatural things like shampoo (which is constructive) to plastic surgery is invalid in this case.
2. Nicki does not need exclusivity in regards to her role model status. Although Charles Manson is not the only famous psychopath, he is nonetheless a psychopath and must be examined individually. This debate is, after all, exclusively about Nicki Minaj's butt.
3. Natural diversity is not a bad thing, and in the interest of equality and value neutrality it must be treated that way. However, when one goes to extremes that have potential negative risks simply for the sake of diversification, it loses its virtue.
4. This is exactly the problem. If women do desire to emulate celebrities as you claim, and in doing so they subjugate themselves to risks similar to the ones referenced in my first post, then there is a small but present causal link.

II. The Extravagance Of Nicki's Butt
Your initial point seems to be a red herring. Most of our behavior is indeed unethical and therefore not good. Just because Nicki's butt is not the most unethical thing accepted in society today does not absolve it from moral judgement. Were that the point of this debate, then my case would be hard fought. However, it is not. Nicki's butt is simply another example of the unethical extravagance that is so commonplace in society today.
Additionally, the fact that Nicki's butt is capable of sitting down is not a benefit gained because of her body modification. In fact, I imagine it is much more difficult to sit now than it would have been before, with the butt that way naturally proportioned to her body. I imagine it would also be difficult to find a suitable public toilet, or to sit in a smart car (given that the seating enclosure is so small).

Finally, and most importantly, my opponent claims (twice) that ethics are subjective. This is a dangerous assertion to make- especially when it goes unquantified as it does in this case. I think that my opponent must concede that at least some ethics are objective. Most notably, those that ensure societal stability, such as no recreational murder, no rape, etc., To prove that my opponent holds these same values, we need look no further than his claim that Nicki's butt is good because it allows her to enjoy butt-freedom. If freedom is valuable, than social order must be upheld- unless my opponent means freedom to the extent of absolute anarchism. If not, than I suggest that acting in the extravagant way that is so commonplace in society today undermines the social rights of individuals in impoverished nations. If freedom and equality are objective moral values, then they extend beyond our borders. Because this is the case, acting in extravagant ways is detrimental to basic human rights (to a degree) and is therefore not good.
Debate Round No. 2
TruthGen

Pro

Nicki"s butt does not make people take unhealthy decisions:

Many shampoos have unhealthy chemicals. http://storyofstuff.org...

I doubt that comparing Nicki to a psychopath makes any point. Nicki is no psycho. So let"s keep talking about her butt as you said. Since we are talking about physical looks, I said diversity in the physical looks sense, not in natural diversity exclusively:
Does this dress make me look fat? That"s what she said, looking at the reflection of her butt on the mirror.
Having different images makes it harder for people to stick to one look. Which is benefitial because people have different body shapes. So even if some people are not happy with they"re bodies, Nicki"s butt offers a possibility for women with fat-butts to feel good about their colossal badonkadonks (Some of these butts are natural)

Women are the ones taking the risk by emulating bodies they cannot acquire. The problem is that they don"t value themselves and their aspect. Even if someone had a natural body, still people would like to emulate it through plastic surgery or even worse: by making themselves anorexic so they can fit in these pants or to "look good" in that jacket.
So what you say also happens natural bodies. But the problem actually is about women not being happy with their physique.

Ethics are really subjective. We have objective benefits from teamwork and also those that ensure societal stability. I agree with that, but ethics is a very generic term.
Now, one thing that is not beneficial is not accepting yourself. That does not mean sticking with what you have, it means to give value to your body.
Nicki"s butt is artificial, yes. But it is not the real cause. Women"s insecurity is.
aburk903

Con

Nicki's butt, of course, is not an exclusively causal factor in individual's unhealthy choices, but it is a subtle influence. Simply because Nicki's butt is part of the problem and not the entire problem does not mean that we can dismiss its negative effects- we must instead discourage any such behavior as undesirable (and not good).

The fact that some shampoos contain unhealthy chemicals is irrelevant to the point I make above.

The comparison of Nicki Minaj to a psychopath is not a comparison of personal traits but as an example of how we must examine individuals according to their own merit rather than dismissing their responsibility because they are part of a larger group.

I am sure that my opponent and I could have an entirely separate debate regarding whether ethics really is subjective, but to an extent some of the semantics are irrelevant to this topic, so I will let it go for this final round.

Finally, my opponent seems to destroy his own values with his final paragraph, stating "one thing that is not beneficial is not accepting yourself" which is something that I entirely agree with. If we could learn to accept our physical appearances as they are and stop pouring money into the beauty industry and cosmetics, than the entire standard of living would improve (and we would be a less superficial society as a whole). Because of all these values that could be advanced by a cultural icon who advocated natural beauty and because of the alternative that we have- an icon that violates both my and my opponent's value of accepting ourselves and furthers the extravagance of American society, you must come to the conclusion that Nicki Minaj's butt is not good. As such, my opponent's compound proposal of goodness and sexiness cannot be upheld and you must vote Con.

Thanks for the interesting debate, Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
TruthGenaburk903Tied
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: I was not aware that Nicki Minaj had had work done on her rear--and Con, I would suggest that you should have explained about Nicki's shots more--you never actually established that she even GOT injections. Pro seemed to concede it, though, and fundamentallhy the extravagance point seemed absurd, and the natural beauty point seemed not sufficient to negate the notion that her butt was "good"--good is VERY subjective, so Con, to negate it you'd have to negate ALL the good, otherwise, good would apply in at least some senes (and bad, if you establish bad, but Pro wasnt' tasked with showing an absolute, or total good--just good). As always, happy to clarify this RFD.