The Instigator
bossyburrito
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Resolved: Public Nudity should be legal

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,390 times Debate No: 25686
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

bossyburrito

Pro

This will be a debate on whether or not nudity should be legal in public areas. I will be affirming the resolution, while Con will be negating it.

Definitions:
Nude - Naked or unclothed, as a person or the body. {1}

First round is for acceptance. No semantics or other unfair tactics.

{1} http://dictionary.reference.com...
Zaradi

Con

I accept. I will be arguing that public nudity should not be legal. Pro will argue that it should be legal. BOP is split between us both. I shouldn't have to say that we will source our claims that need sourcing and compete to the fairest, yet fiercest extent.

With that, I wish my opponent good luck and turn the floor over to him.
Debate Round No. 1
bossyburrito

Pro

P1: Nudity does not harm anyone
Simply being nude does not harm anyone. In fact, studies done on the matter {1} showed that social nudity can increase self-confidence and esteem. If we go by the Non-Aggression Principle, nudity should not be banned.

P2: Taboo
Clothes were first worn for their functionality - keeping warm. They were not worn purely to avoid being nude. After hundreds of generations of clothing being the norm, taboo started to form around being nude. Through the years, people started becoming against nudity because of things like religion and irrational superstition. The Asch conformity experiments {2} show that, if something is heavily agreed upon withing a group, it is more likely that others will not try to contest it. The bandwagon effect can explain why nudity is taboo. Additionally, it has been shown that parents heavily influence a child's future beliefs {3}.

P3: Nudity is not inherently sexual
The naked human form is not sexual until it is made to be. Due to over-dramatization of nudity and most portrayals of nudity as purely sexual in the media and such, the mind gets overly sensitive. However, when you see someone nude on a daily basis doing normal activities such as cooking, your mind gets used to it. When you get in the shower, do you feel like you are doing something sexual? Probably not, as you realize that you are just washing yourself. This is the key - learning how intentions affect perceptions.

I will now pass this over to Pro and I am looking forward to his arguments.

{1}http://o2binsxm.com...

{2}http://en.wikipedia.org...

{3}http://www.michigan.gov...
Zaradi

Con

Refutations:

Contention one:

Here is where my opponent attempts to pull a fast one on us. I would like to remind my opponent that the resolution calls into question nudity in PUBLIC, and that his source addresses nudity in PRIVATE (i.e. in your own home). I'd kindly like for him to stay on topic next round and address the actual resolution.

But, moreover, it does have the potential to harm people on the emotional/mental level. If the person is of a more conservative background, they may view the indecent exposure as offensive and harmful to themselves. Or, in a more drastic case, if the person in the nude was, well, not exactly aesthetically pleasing, it could be harmful mentally. So, just logically, his contention is false.

Contention two:

Kinda irrelevant to the resolution, don'tcha think? The is shouldn't affect the ought, and I was thinking we would be debating the ought here. If something is taboo right now, what does that matter on what it should be? Please keep arguments relevant to the resolution at hand.

Contention Three:

Okay? Nothing inherently sexual about nudity. Gotcha. I fail to see how the lack of sexuality in being naked mandates that we allow people to run around the streets in nothing but their birthday suit.

So far, my opponent has not presented a relevant case for why we should legalize public nudity. His only points address private nudity and why nudity currently is looked at with a funny face. In so far as he's failed to uphold HIS BOP, I'll present an argument of my own.

Con Contention:

So let's make a little thought trip. Let's say we go through with legalizing public nudity. People nation-wide throw off their clothes in joy, renounce the entire clothing industry, and refuse to purchase clothing for the rest of their sorry lives! That's probably a good thing for the pro, since it signals his victory, but at what cost is the victory? "Well, no one is harmed by public nudity, so there isn't a cost!" pro would argue. I would agree on a physical scale, but what about a monetary scale? I mean, if they're going entirely nude, then they have no need for clothing, correct? That means that the clothing industry is going to take a hit, and probably a bit one. But how big of a hit? Let's think about things.

From what I've got, the average price of clothes and things that people would stop wearing for one person per month is 142 dollars(1). Over a year (which is multiply 142 by 12), that adds up to over 1500 dollars a year (1704 specifically). Now, since I couldn't find any specific stats for nation-wide supporters of public nudity, this is where we have to speculate. Let's say that a good guesstimate number of people who would actively support it would be around 10,000 across the nation. That's over 17 million dollars a year. Let's go a bit bigger, though, since people who aren't actively support it now might support it once it's passed, which is valid logic. Let's say, maybe 50,000 end up going gung ho for the public nudity full time. That's over 85 million dollars from the clothing industry per year. Of course this is all averages since some people spend ridiculously more than others, who may spend ridiculously less than others. But if the average is anywhere close to what the actual impact is, over the course of just a few years the impact would be devastating.

Thus, since I have fulfilled my BOP and my opponent has failed to fill his, the vote is an easy con vote.

Source:

http://www.bundle.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
bossyburrito

Pro

R1: The study wasn't on public nudity
I realise that. However, I do not see how this detracts from my case. The point of the study was to show that nudity does not negatively affect those around you. I can't think of any valid reasons for why the results would be bound to the home and the home alone. This is like saying that by bringing a dog outside from your home, you are changing the dog. This might be true if the dog has a rare skin condition, but in the majority of cases the dog doesn't.

R2: Nudity can emotionally harm someone
You cannot justify a ban by using the averse effects of said ban. Example: People pirate a game (Get offended by nudity for irrational reasons). Invasive DRM is added to future games to prevent piracy (Public nudity gets banned). Pirates pirate the game because of said DRM (People hate nudity because of the effects the ban had on the perception of nudity). I have shown that there is no rational reason to shun nudity. Therefor, there is no reason to be offended by nudity without being irrational. Before you say that they are still offended, I could say that you saying that offends me because it came to me in a dream. Should you be banned from saying that?

R3: Your arguments about Taboo and sexuality are irrelevant
See above. If a ban is based on irrationality, it should be lifted.

R4: The clothing industry will die
My opponent overlooks a few vital points here. First of all, nudity would only be legal in public. This means that businesses still have the option of having a clothes-only area. This could be because of issues such as atmosphere and sanitation. This means that people would still have to buy at least a few outfits for when they want to go out to one of these businesses. Secondly, the clothing industry would still make money during Winter. It would be extremely silly to assume that no one would wear clothes in the colder times of year. I understand that this could potentially slightly harm the industry, but the market will fix itself in time.
Zaradi

Con

A2 R1 (this is starting to sound like Star Wars. inb4 R2 D2 or C3PO):

The study you cited was bound to family members in the home, however outside there are more people than just your family. Friends, neighbors, strangers, and hundreds upon thousands of people who aren't your family are out there in the public, which makes the study results too narrow to actually address the resolution. If we were talking about private nudity (which is legal already), then your study would be legit and address the resolution. However, since it doesn't, then it doesn't actually address what we're talking about.

Also, the dog analogy is flawed. When we bring the dog outside, we don't change the dog, but rather what the dog interracts with. Whereas in the house he might just have his owner and his bed and food to interract with, when we take him out of the house we expand hundred-fold what he has to interract with, and thus the actions he takes would need to be adjusted accordingly.

A2 R2:

1. You're assuming that the taboo of nudity came from the ban, but I'd argue that the ban came from the taboo. Before law came into affect that said that public nudity wasn't allowed, it was just socially frowned upon. Also, your reasoning for it being irrational reasons are really bad, but I'll get to that in a second.
2. Your argument for rationality and irrationality are really bad, frankly. Why? Because what we consider to be a rational reason is entirely subjective. While I may find practical, rational reason to study for a big test coming up, my friend may think that my reason for studying is totally irrational and stupid. Reasoning isn't objective, and thus we cannot hold society to one big melting pot of reason. If someone feels that their reasoning for x is rational, then to them it's rational. It may not be rational to you, but I would also say that your rationality for claiming that others are being irrational is, frankly, irrational. Thus, if people view something as emotionally or mentally harmful, then to them it does cause harm, while to others who do not view it as such, it doesn't cause harm. But the potential for harm is still there.

A2 R3:

See refutation 2 above. Rationality is subjective, and thus arguments based on rationality should not be considered or weighed.

A2 R4:

Fallacy of the moving target. Business areas are still viewed as public spaces (while a person's personal office may be private, the overall area of business is still usually public). This moving target fallacy also applies to his argument about the winter time. But also, even if what he said isn't fallacious and abusive, the market would still be irreparably damaged even if they made normal profits during the winter. Even if we allow that people buy clothes normally during the winter (dividing it up by seasons means we multiply the average monthly expenditure of 142 by 9 to include three seasons instead of 4), we still have 1278 dollars per person annually. Multiply this by 10,000 people and we get over 12 and a half million dollars lost each year. By 50,000 and we lose almost 64 million dollars annually. We'd still be massively screwing our economy over. But also, even if the damages weren't as bad as I'm proving they are, the market wouldn't just "fix itself over time" because there's nothing to replace it with. We're taking away clothes sales and not replacing it with anything else. This means that we'd get job loss from clothing companies trying to compensate for the decrease in sales and from that job loss we get even more negative impact on the economy. It's not going to just "fix itself".

Again, I'm still proving why we shouldn't allow public nudity. I'm fulfilling my BOP. My opponent has failed to do so. That means the only vote is a con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
bossyburrito

Pro

bossyburrito forfeited this round.
Zaradi

Con

Oh see now look what you've done. You took it off the front page. For shame, bossy! For shame!
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
Conduct point for the forfeit.
Posted by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
aethetics should be aesthetics
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
Oh god damn it. Vote Con
Posted by kckettler 4 years ago
kckettler
"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little to no influence on society."- Mark Twain
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
And I am surprised as well; I would have expected that the looseness of the definition would have come into play by this point. For example, "public nudity" could also mean public - but designated areas." This would essentially flip the topic, from the current "nudity in grocery stores" to something closer to "nudity on specified public beaches."

This would turn the discussion away from why we should change the existing paradigm to why we should simply do nothing. To me, this is far easier to argue; it's easy and simple to do nothing.
Posted by AceBasin 4 years ago
AceBasin
Is this really the best that you two can do? The only counter-argument Con can come up with is that the apparel industry would be devastated if public nudity were legal?

And in response, Pro fails to point out (at the very least) that the U.S. apparel industry accounts for some $350 BILLION in annual retail sales and that an $85 million loss (as estimated by Con) is unlikely to hopelessly derail it? $85 million represents a 0.02% hit. Hardly devastating.

If you're going to spend the time, please try harder.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
Abandoning bias is not a requirement for voting. My comment was in jest. I apologize for being unclear in the matter.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Whatever you do I do. If you wanna recap, recap. If you wanna rebut, then rebut. I'll do the same.
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
Do I just recap or do I rebut?
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Then, I suspect, that you should not vote if you cannot see past your bias.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
bossyburritoZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture has ruined so many arguments. :'(
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
bossyburritoZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
bossyburritoZaradiTied
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: Con's "aethetics" argument wins the day. Can you imagine what it would be like trying to vacation in Florida with all the grandmas and grandpas running around bare-a$$ nekkid??