The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
13 Points

Proactiv is a terrible product.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,202 times Debate No: 21416
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)




The so called "acne miracle product", which has been advertised by stars such as Jessica Simpson, Jennifer Love Hewitt, and Katy Perry, definitely is not what it claims to be. I, fortunately, have never had acne or blemish problems, but I KNOW that this product does not work. I know this from reading reviews, seeing proof in pictures, and having friends who have used it and either saw no results or found that it worsened their skin condition. Even since it has been named "new and improved", many children, teens, and adults receive disappointment by the bottle. Vote Pro, Proactiv is a terrible product.


I'll happily stand up for the miraculous product that has made my life so much easier.

I would also like to note for the viewers that my opponent's case relies on outside facts and second-hand knowledge. So if I can provide a better source than my opponent, then I will be sufficiently be outweighing my opponent's claims.

I myself am a Proactiv user, and I am more than sufficiently happy in the product. Before I started using Proactiv, acne was a huge problem with me. My complexion was absolutly horrid, and people often played conntect-the-dots on my face when I fell asleep in class. A fellow classmate got me a one-month subscription to Proactiv as a joke, but I decided to take the joke seriously and started to use it. And within a week, I could see results. The number of acne marks on my face were decreasing and decreasing in size and redness. Within a month of taking the Proactiv, my face was practically clear of acne!

I decided that it was pure coincidence that it happened to clear at the same time I used Proactiv, and stopped using it. Within two weeks, my acne was back and the teasing and slander continued renewed. But this time, I knew that Proactiv worked.

Now, being a two-year proud user of Proactiv, I'm acne-free and am fully enjoying life! I've had more girlfriends and have gained in popularity since it cleared, and my life is overall more enjoyable since I'm no longer being berrated for my complexion.

To adress my opponent's arguments, it's true that Proactiv does not work for everyone. There are a few people who may be allergic to some of the ingrediants used to create the miracle product. But for the vast majority of Americans, this product works. I'm a living testement to that.

So for the following reasons, I urge a vote for the con debater.
Debate Round No. 1


I am genuinely very happy that you cleared your complexion!

I'm going to ask you though, did you try any other products or procedures before trying Proactiv?

It is true, everybody's skin is different. And this goes beyond oily/dry/combination. Each and every complexion reacts differently to different products. Some people may find Proactiv to be wonderful! But MANY others try it and are very disappointed.

Like you pointed out, my case relies entirely on outside facts and second-hand knowledge, but I feel like I have enough proof to back up my argument.

I'll start out with a story.

I remember years ago, I was talking to one of my friends at school. She did have acne, but the obvious flaw on her complexion that day was not zits, but dead skin all over. It almost looked like she had sprinkled coconut on her face! She had often complained about her acne, and that very day she mentioned that she had started using Proactiv and was hopeful. Over a week or two, her blemishes had seemed to diminish, but her "coconut face" was getting progressively worse! She FINALLY came to a conclusion that Proactiv was drying out her skin, and stopped using the product. When she did, all of her acne returned almost instantly.

Around a year later, another friend of mine with troubled skin started using Proactiv. Do you know what it did to her? She got "coconut face" as well! She stopped using it and went on Accutane (which cleared her skin, but I would NEVER advise it. Look up the side effects. Terrible.)

And then just this year, I met yet ANOTHER coconut face. He was complaining of acne AND dry skin. "Do you use Proactiv?" I asked him? He replied, "Yes."

Aside from the coconut syndrome, Proactiv can also cause other skin issues- increased blemishes and burning, to name a few. I have had many friends who have tried Proactiv and experienced different traumas as the result. I have NEVER witnessed anybody not behind a television screen speak positively about the product.

This does not mean that it doesn't work for anyone. People like you- my opponent, and some reviewers on sites, say you are delighted with the product. And of course, there are the negative reviews as well. Check out these reviews for an example:

Among other reviews and pro/con sites, I also found this article to be very interesting- check it out:

I'd also like to bring up one of your comments:

"I decided that it was pure coincidence that it happened to clear at the same time I used Proactiv, and stopped using it. Within two weeks, my acne was back and the teasing and slander continued renewed. But this time, I knew that Proactiv worked."

Apparently Proactiv is only a temporary fix, which means you must keep BUYING the product. Those Proactiv people are probably just laughing their way to the bank as we speak.

Some users have also reported that it had worked for awhile, but then stopped! THAT'S not good!!

And what if Proactiv goes out of business or changes their ingredients or something? What are you gonna do?

A true acne "cure" does not make your skin grow dependent to only that product. If you have acne that won't seem to go away, visit a dermatologist who truly cares about his/her customers, and you will see the reward. And do NOT go to a derm who will prescribe you Accutane!!!!


While my opponent's case is telling, there were a few key mistakes that's going to ultimately cost her the entire debate from right here, even ignoring that there's a round three coming up. Why? Because my opponent practically concedes that my argument is true. But I'll get to that in a second. There's a few other things I'd like to talk about first.

Again, her argument relies almost solely on second-hand witnesses. This isn't too accurate with details and is succeptable to misunderstandings. I am, however, a living, walking testemony to the effectiveness of the Proactiv product. This is going to be more reliable than any amount of second hand accounts that she has because I know exactly what happened, and all my details are accurate and truth. She only has what her friends have told her. Which would you trust more?

Also, she gives a few links to reviews against Proactiv. But the only problem with this is she also goes out and concedes that there are reviews out there that are FOR Proactiv. At this point, she makes my job easier and I don't even have to go find the links. The fact that SHE CONCEDED that they exist is enough to make her links non-unique. There are links for and against Proactiv, so the links will inevitably not matter in this debate. Now, let's talk about her rebuttals. I'll italicize her specific wording.

"Over a week or two, her blemishes had seemed to diminish..."

So, essentially, what you as the voter want to pull from this is that, essentially, my opponent concedes that Proactiv works. So, essentially, unless Proactiv kills someone, it really can't be seen as a terrible product. It does what it was designed to do, clear the human face of acne problems and blemishes. Anything else is just nit-picking. But in case you don't think it's just nit-picking, let's move on to another piece of her case.

Proactiv was drying out her skin...

Hold on. Did I say Proactiv worked for every single person? I'm pretty sure that I didn't. Deduct a conduct point from me if you feel it's necessary, but my opponent's grasping at straws in an attempt to get something to supplement her semi-sketchy argument in the first place. I do realize that Proactiv isn't perfect. But it does work. She even concedes that. As far as that matters, there isn't really much of an option but to vote con.

And, as a little side note, the only other alternative to using Proactiv that my opponent suggests has so horrible of side-effects, I'm scared to even google up what they cause. So really, even if Proactiv is bad, which I don't believe, it's the best available option compared to the mysteriously horrible alternatives. So here is the second place to vote con. Now, onto the next point that I would like to point out to our voters.

Proactiv can also cause other skin issues- increased blemishes...

Wait, hold on. Didn't earlier, you say that when your friend used Proactiv there was a decrease in blemishes? Now I'm not a genius about debate, but this is what we debaters call a 'double bind'. It happens when your opponent contradicts themselves so badly that they're left with two horribly bad choices. I'll go ahead and list those two choices. You can either go with option A: that says that you claim that Proactiv increases blemishes. That seems good in theory, but since your second-hand accounts already rely on Proactiv DECREASING blemishes, it would undermine any truth value that they had. With those undermined and considered untrue by your own argument, you would have no offense. Thus, the voters would have no choice but to vote con. But, like a true gentleman, I give you another option for your very choosing. Option B: You concede that Proactiv decreases blemishes, which would make it a good product. That's a flat-out easy win for the con. So there you have it. Have fun!

So this is exactly why you can vote con right here, regardless of what happens in round three: I'm the only one with accurate, unique offense. Her second hand accounts are untrue by her own arguments, her links are non-unique. And furthermore, she put herself in a double bind and contradicted herself so bad that no matter what route she takes, it results in a con vote.
Debate Round No. 2


Woah woah woah, first of all, I said that it affects people differently. I said it works.. for SOME. And DOESN'T for MANY others. ONE friend experienced a decrease in blemishes (but many other new issues). Another (along with many people on the "non-unique" links I posted) experienced an INCREASE. They are NOT the same person. See? I'm not going crazy- no 'double bind' here. And I never said that Accutane was the only other alternative. Didn't you read my conclusion? The only mistake I made in this debate was in Round 1, when I said "I know this product does not work". My poor choice of words, because I was leaving out the few who have experienced positive results. I should have just left it as "it's definitely not what it claims to be", because it's not, and THAT is what I have been backing up this whole time. My debate is titled "Proactiv is a Terrible Product" because it IS. The commercials encourages FALSE hope for many children, teens, and adults. The product has caused so many DIFFERENT problems for DIFFERENT people while the company is getting paid. Anyone who has benefited from Proactiv could have benefited from something else, with the help of a dermatologist if need be. Which reminds me, you never answered the question I asked you in the beginning of Round 2. DID you try anything else first?

Lastly, I'd like to point out that if Proactiv is as wonderful as it claims, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON would have acne, or even a zit for that matter. You admit yourself, that it's not a perfect product, but even if it was as good as you are making it out to be- and the only people who it doesn't work for are the ones who are allergic to some of the ingredients, then ALMOST no one would have acne.

But anyway, I'm obviously not gonna get through to you- so I will end here. Good luck, and have fun with all your girlfriends!


Okay voters, honesty moment. I probably wouldn't give me conduct. I'm going to drop the professionalism and just speak the honest truth this round. If you think it comes off as harsh, dock me points. I could really care less. Now, let's get started, shall we? Her round three was, more or less, a damage control round.

For those that don't know, Proactiv is a product that people apply to their face to reduce acne and blemishes. AGAIN, she admits that while on Proactiv, her friend experienced a decrease in blemishes. Flaw number one. This is what puts her in a double bind, but I'll get to that point in a minute. Because she admitted that HER OWN ARGUMENT proves that Proactiv causes a decrease in blemishes, which proves that Proactiv works. That means that no matter what, right here, you can vote con. First and probably easiest place to vote con.

Second reason to vote con. She gives no reason why her accounts of second hand proofs that I've already disproven outweigh my living, breathing testemony. She hasn't disproven it in any way, so my account is going to outweigh hers. Also, I've proven from the point above, why her second-hand accounts only prove my point further, so seeing as I have offense coming off of BOTH my case and her case, here's the second place to vote con.

Third reason to vote con is the double bind. Let me explain how this works, since my opponent has seemingly missed this one and how it works. A double bind occurs when an opponent contradicts herself so badly that the only way to fix it would be to severely cripple their position or lose entirely. My opponent is put into a double bind when she, as the pro, must defend that Proactiv inherently doesn't work, then says that it does work. This is such a bad contradiction because she either must admit that a) the arguments made in her accounts (that it decreased blemishes) were true, and thus negating the resolution, which is a con vote, or that b) the arguments made in her case were false, thus giving her ZERO offense in this round, which would result in another con vote. Choosing not to do either isn't an option, only resulting in a dropped argument, which merits a con vote. So this is the third, and probably the best place to vote con.

I would give more, but honestly, I'm feeling too lazy too, and if someone needs more reasons to vote for con than that, then you haven't actually read the debate. This is an easy vote, and anyone can really see that there's no reason not to vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Wow. I actually got conduct. Strange...
Oh well. Not going to complain.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro spends the entire debate talking about why proactiv doesn't work 100 of the time, that doesn't justify it being a "terrible product" and cons arguments were basically left untouched because they are not based on proactiv working 100 of the time. Thus it is a con decision. I was tempted to give spelling to pro but decided against it. I will however give sources to Pro although they aren't very good.
Vote Placed by Mak-zie 4 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con misspelled some words like "address," but other than that, his arguments are better. Pro's arguments are insubstantial; Proactive never says that it works for EVERY person, there isn't a product that can do that.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
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: proactive does not have a 100 guarantee to work, and it is proven to indeed help people. Pro failed to meet her burden of proof by a large margin meaning Con easily won arguments. I gave conduct to the con after the pro's sly little remark in round 3.