The Instigator
kylerez
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SocialDemocrat
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should Beauty Competitions be Banned?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2016 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 480 times Debate No: 88736
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

kylerez

Pro

Thank you for accepting this offer and debate. I believe Beauty Competitions should be banned from countries around the globe. At a young age, people start entering beauty pageants, which results in kids fighting over looks and self-image. Kid's, child and even adults should not be fighting for their looks and outside features.

Of course winning would boost a child's self-confidence but there are many losers resulting in a pageant and they may feel ugly or embarrassed. I understand that not all of the competition is based on looks. Some pageants ask the contenders questions to see how good of a person they are. Costume also has a big role to play and can result in getting more points/votes. Many features go into these events but it's called a Beauty Competition for a reason.

This might also allow people to believe they're more dominant just because of their look. These events promote that mindset that being pretty makes you better than everyone. People should not be comparing each other by the image on the outside and it is very unnecessary and unprofessional.
SocialDemocrat

Con

Since you provided no definition I shall define the terms.

Banned-Officially or legally prohibit

Burden of proof is on you.
Debate Round No. 1
kylerez

Pro

And I believe Beauty Pageants should be officially or legally prohibited.
SocialDemocrat

Con

"I believe beauty competitions should be banned from countries around the globe."

A. Make sure you understand what pro is saying here, they are saying that if there is a competition based around beauty, then all those involved should be legally charged and possibly get prison time. there is no way to skate around this.

B. Think about the problem with this, say some toddlers are playing dress up and ask their parents to grade them on their choices for example. This is in fact a beauty competition. What pro is advocating for is making sure that if this was found, out those parents would be legally punished, meaning they may be fined which in a low income household may mean they have to go a day without food, or may have to face jail time meaning they will have to spend time away from their kids. Do we really need to critical think that much to realize how stupid that is?

C. Pro did not say organized beauty competitions, but all competitions that involve beauty, you could make a very strong case that breast implants actually are a beauty competition. Why would a woman get breast implants? To compete for the attention of males or females (if they are lesbian) why would you make this illegal? You have to understand saying that anything that could be considered a beauty competition should be banned could be abused so easily, since so many things could fall under the category of a beauty competition. Sh1t anyone could make a case that this could include banning modelling or even "fashionable" clothing.

",,,which results in kids fighting over looks and self-image."

A. Can you give me a shred of evidence that shows that having any beauty competitions (including the obscure example like modelling and breast implants) hurt people physically, emotionally, or mentally long term? As it is, you have no backing that this is actually relevant.

B. It could very well be the fact that kids are not accepting of their selves because of weight issues for example, getting rid of any and all beauty competitions at a global scale will have the effects I said above and will not get rid of self image issues, have you ever consider why their are so many males and females you have self image issues who have never been in an organized beauty competition? Because the way humans function is partly a beauty competition within itself, people will always rival for attention, getting rid of any organized beauty competitions (including the obscure ones) will not change this.

So blah blah you explain what goes on in an organized beauty pageant, but again like I said there will always be self image issues with people like I stated above that is just how humans function, and banning this will only make parents in low income households have to spend money they may have needed for food and rent on fees for engaging in a beauty competition maybe in a friends house or their own home.

A. Also keep in mind, to actually monitor all beauty competitions, you would have to monitor the homes of all people. So you are also advocating for spying on all people 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, on a global scale. I think we all see how preposterous and dangerous this is.

"These events promote that mindset that being pretty makes you better than everyone."

A. A shred of evidence that this mindset effects any kids in any long term state please other than a temporary displeasure at losing a competition that all people have.

B. This all is about a 100% false assumption that getting rid of beauty competition makes all people feel equal and special and is worth jailing and fining parents and spying on everyone globally. People will never all feel equal, because people have things they are good at and are bad at. That is just how humans function, if you like soccer but suck at it, you will naturally be upset that you are not as good as others. But we don't ban soccer, because this is just how humans work.

"People should not be judging each other by the image on the outside and it is very unnecessary and unprofessional."

A. Your whole argument is asinine.

B. No matter what, people naturally judge each other by what they can, and people naturally can not read other people's thoughts and emotions to immediately determine whether they are a nice person. This is how humans work, organized beauty competitions are not the cause of this.
Debate Round No. 2
kylerez

Pro

Beauty Pageants are a competition around beauty and I do not agree that any kind of people should be charged or get prison time. I would like to forbid beauty pageants from occurring in the countries that still have them existent.

To some extent, you can considering having a toddler playing dress up a beauty pageant, but I'm talking about the official competitions that is held between different candidates. The one that is presented on stages, TV, with a live audience, and such. I may not have stated the words, "organized beauty competitions," but I did state, "Some pageants ask the contenders questions to see how good of a person they are. Costume also has a big role to play and can result in getting more points/votes. Many features go into these events but it's called a Beauty Competition for a reason." Official pageants have the qualities of the things I just stated from my last argument. Obviously I'm talking about an organized event when I emphasized on the contenders, voting and costumes.

"Can you give me a shred of evidence that shows that having any beauty competitions (including the obscure example like modelling and breast implants) hurt people physically, emotionally, or mentally long term? As it is, you have no backing that this is actually relevant." Are you kidding me? People often feel emotionally distressed from competitions like this. It teaches kids that a worth of a person is mostly based on their image. If a child was graded for their looks against other children and didn't win, you would think for the slightest second they would fill insecure or hurt? It can be long term as well. Some people have a sensitive mindset and be mentally bruised from things that make them feel imperfect.

Getting rid of beauty competitions would obviously change the way people look at themselves. Beauty Pageants are to admire the pretty. People will notice this obviously and it could harm children. A child could easily think that the person who won, is more superior and dominant because they are more pretty. Now obviously there will still be self-image issues with people but getting rid of these "games" will allow people to understand that look isn't the most important thing in a girl/guy.

"That is just how humans function, if you like soccer but suck at it, you will naturally be upset that you are not as good as others. But we don't ban soccer, because this is just how humans work." I understand that not everyone is a winner but if you're bad a soccer, you work and train to become better. If you lose in a pageant? Does that make you bad? What do you do? Apply more makeup?
SocialDemocrat

Con

"Beauty pageants are a competition around beauty and i so not agree that any kind of people should be charged or get prison time. I would like to forbid beauty pageants from occurring in the countries that still have them existent."

A. If you are for banning something, you are for making this illegal, this means a prison record and/or fees and/or jail time.
If you say you don't want any of these then you concede you do not want to ban beauty competitions.

B. And like I said you did not say pageants originally, you said competition, and like I said, most ways humans interact are forms of beauty competitions.

"To some extent, you can consider having a toddler playing dress up a beauty pageant, but I'm talking about the official competitions that is held between different candidates."

A. No, no, no, you're too late. You just said beauty competitions, so under your own debate anything that could be considered a beauty pageant should be banned, or else you concede and you lose.

"Obviously I'm talking about an organized event when I emphasized on the contenders, voting and costumes.

A. No your whole idea for what should be banned was anything that could be considered a beauty competition... anything.

B. Let's see kids playing dress up, they would be contenders, their parents are judges their is voting, and they are dressing up that is costumes. So by your debate, you would want to legally charge with prison records and/or fees and/or jail time... parents whose kids play dress up.

C. How about modelling... models are contenders, reviews by critics and the people buying the product the model is wearing that is voting, and costumes as in the clothes being advertised. So yes, you are advocating banning modelling.

"People often feel emotionally distressed from competitions like this."

A. Okay... everyone does not like to lose at anything. But it is how humans function. You can not get rid of competition, if your grounds for banning beauty competition is people do not like to lose then to you would have to ban anything where people could lose to have this effect of making it impossible to lose, such as sports, video games, filming, taking tests in school, engineering, medical research, ambition, essentially anything you could lose at.

B. I have to reinforce again, to make sure no one is involved with beauty competitions, you would have to have the government spy on everyone at a global scale.

"It teaches kids that a worth of a person is mostly based on their image?"

A. Any evidence for this?

B. So could anything that is based on competition e.g pretty much everything in life, as I states above.

"...do you think for the slightest second they would feel insecure or hurt?"

A. You mean the temporary displeasure of losing we all get from... losing at anything. This isn't exactly grounds to ban a beauty pageant, as you can not get rid of competition and having some people sometimes lose at things, it is how humans work.

"It can be long term as well. Some people have a sensitive mindset and be mentally bruised from things that make them feel imperfect."

A. Okay, so then we need to get rid of anything that could make sensitive people feel imperfect? Then we have to get rid of... basketball. What is some one with a sensitive mindset loses a game of basketball and gets suicidal thoughts daily? Again, banning competition does not make sense. Competition is how humans interact, whether it be games or vying for attention. You can not live without some people winning and losing at things, or else what you have is a stagnant world where anything that could hurt some ones feelings is banned, including human interaction... hey rejection hurts.

B. Any evidence any organized beauty competitions has done this?

"People will notice this and obviously it will harm children."

A. Okay, you have yet to give a shred of evidence of how organized beauty competitions are hurting society and should be legally banned despite the downsides and uselessness to that I already gave, it is completely asinine claims you make, and the burden of proof is on you.

"A child could easily think that the person who won, is more superior and dominant because they are more pretty."

A. You mean the displeasure of losing, this goes for pretty much everything in life. Also, again, a shred of evidence?

"...will allow people to understand that look isn't the most important thing in a girl/guy."

A. No evidence... oh, no surprise there.

B. Really, will it, and is it even a good thing? People function based on beauty, example, the mating game. If two people are romantically/sexually interested in the same person, but one gets rejected, think it will give that message? I do, but again, this is just how people work, through competition with each other.

"I understand that not everyone is a winner."

A. Clearly, you do not, as the basis for your argument is that beauty pageants should be banned because people do not like the feeling of losing and feeling that is an area they are not good at.

This is the same sh1t, same pile.

"...if you're bad at soccer, you work and train to become better."

A. Same for beauty competitions, put on more makeup, try to be more charismatic, dress nicer, get plastic surgery, a lot of options if they want to.

B. But still, if some one is garbage at soccer and gets beat by people who are naturally good, they will feel upset at losing. Same for beauty competitions. Some people are just not good at things, if life was always who works the hardest at something gets the furthest with anything, then skill would be obsolete, that just isn't how things (including soccer) work.

C. The feeling of losing still remains. But humans work in competition. Sometimes, there are people who are good at this one thing, but bad at other things (everyone) And then they go up against some one who is better, they lose, and (just like a beauty competition) they have a feeling of displeasure and insecurity since at something they were bested. Same goes for soccer, and beauty competitions, your argument here is just... stupid.

"If you lose in a pageant? Does that make you bad?"

A. At pageants, it makes you bad at those, just like with anything else in life.

"What do you do? Apply more makeup?"

A. Nice sentence structure with the rhetorical questions very flashy.

B. Applying more makeup to look more attractive and doing it better is a 100% viable option. There is no reason why it is not.
Debate Round No. 3
kylerez

Pro

Beauty Competitions is what I did say. But I did mean Pageants. I emphasized that multiple times so please stop returning to an argument where I already made my point. Of course you can consider competitions a completely different thing, but who does? I want you to type "Beauty Competitions" in your search bar. All you see throughout the page is pageants around the globe.

"Let's see kids playing dress up, they would be contenders, their parents are judges their is voting, and they are dressing up that is costumes. So by your debate, you would want to legally charge with prison records and/or fees and/or jail time... parents whose kids play dress up." You're obviously returning to this example since I didn't emphasize on saying "pageants" the first round but this isn't a pageant. Their is no organizer, no authorization, etc.

I also love how in the second round all I state is, " And I believe Beauty Pageants should be officially or legally prohibited." yet Con still rolls back into the same argument. "You said competition!" "Not pageants!" "Toddler playing dress up!" "Not pageants!" "Blah Blah Blah!"

Yes I stated, "To some extent, you can consider having a toddler playing dress up a beauty pageant, but I'm talking about the official competitions that is held between different candidates" Yes to some extent. YOU. Con. YOU believe toddlers dressing up is a official beauty pageant. But I'M not considering that anything of those means and I'm referring to the OFFICIAL competitions that are held between different candidates. Let's talk about what a candidate is? Candidate- a person who applies for a job or is nominated for election. I do not believe a girl applies to anything when she's having good fun with her friends and are seeing who is prettier.

"Okay, you have yet to give a shred of evidence of how organized beauty competitions are hurting society and should be legally banned despite the downsides and uselessness to that I already gave, it is completely asinine claims you make, and the burden of proof is on you." Obviously Con want's evidence even though the answer is so clear. Let me give you websites to look through throughout your time of insulting me and my beliefs.

http://theweek.com... - 5 reasons child pageants are bad for kids.
http://calpoly.uloop.com... - The Ugly Truth to Child Beauty Pageants.
http://www.dixiesunnews.com... - Beauty pageants lower women's self-worth, self-esteem
http://www.usatoday.com... -Could child beauty pageants be banned in the USA?

"You mean the displeasure of losing, this goes for pretty much everything in life. Also, again, a shred of evidence?"
It's all up there buddy. Enjoy! I know it's the only thing you like to use upon me. Now of course there is winning and losing in a game. Children get mad when they lose in Monopoly. But Beauty PAGEANTS are different. They refer to someones look, and of course people can find that hurtful if they don't win. It's all up in those websites for you pal.

Now I do not believe plastic surgery is an option to get better in PAGEANTS. "Oh I lost a competition, let me pay hundred of dollars for surgery that could fail. It can also get addictive. " The people who commit to this...are most likely embarrassed since they lost one of these competitions that is based on the look and worth of a persons beauty.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'll throw you more evidence so you can stop using the same argument "You have no evidence!" Against me. Now I understand the concepts of being good at one thing and being bad at another. But you can always work harder to become better. Now YOU consider paying for all these products and such to become better in these competitions.....I mean PAGEANTS. (That was a close one.) If I'm an athlete, I have different branches I could commit to. If I'm bad at soccer, I could tryout for Basketball or Baseball. Bad at them too? Oh my? Tennis, Badmitten, Snowboarding, Skiing, Ping-Pong, Football, Rugby, Field Hockey, Volleyball, Ice-Hockey, Roller-Hockey, Track, Long Jump, High Jump, maybe just plain lifting. If you're an athlete... you may be good at one thing and bad at another. Beauty PAGEANTS it's plain and simple. Pretty or ugly.. Now obviously if you lose, I'm not saying people will refer to you as ugly... but you may refer to yourself as ugly. No other branch you can escape to. It hurts their mental health which is again explained in those heavy websites I gave you! You're so very welcome.
SocialDemocrat

Con

"Beauty competition is what I did say. But I did mean pageants."

A. Do recognize that my opponent is conceding.

B. Then you should have said that, your fault not mine, you have to deal with it.

"I emphasized that multiple times so please stop returning to an argument where I already made my point."

A. Yeah maybe in the second and third rounds, but its too late.

"I want you to type beauty competitions in your search bar. All you see throughout the page is pageants around the globe."

A. Okay valid there. However it is your own fault for not being specific and just saying beauty competitions, that could mean so many different things, and does.

B. I already dismantles your reason for doing that anyways.

"You're obviously returning to this example since I didn't emphasize on saying pageants the first round but this isn't a pageant. Their is no organizer, no authorization, etc."

A. In this case, what exactly falls under etc.

B. Yes there is, the kids are the organizers, and the parents are the authorization.

C. A pageant used here as defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary is: a beauty competition. So yes, it is a pageant.

D. Again even if it was not a pageant, you said competitions, you can not open the debate with something and then say oh I changed my mind I actually want to debate this definition.

"I also love how in the second round all I state is, and I believe beauty pageants should be officially or legally prohibited."

A. But you said competitions in the first round, second round is too late buddy.

B. We already went over how a toddler playing dress up is a pageant, because by definition all a pageant is is a beauty competitions, so with further analysis, even if pro did say pageant, all a pageant is is any kind of beauty competition. SO, yes, modelling, dress up, etc. are in fact both beauty pageants AND competitions simultaneously.

C. We already went over how dangerous this is, as if this is legally prohibited, then if it was found out parents were partaking in a beauty competition/pageant (they are the same) then they would have legal action taken against them (e.g a prison record (which could have their drivers license taken away which they need to drive their kids, or make them lose their job, and/or get fined (which in a low income household may mean them and their kids have to go hungry for a day or get evicted, and/or get jail time (which means their kids would either be taken into foster care or be left to fend for themselves at a young age.)

"YOU. Con. YOU believe toddlers dressing up is a official beauty pageant. But I'M not considering that anything of those means and I'm referring to OFFICIAL competitions that are held between candidates."

A. We must recognize how stupid pro is being here, by definition, all a pageant is is a beauty competition.

"Let's talk about what a candidate is? Candidate- a person who applies for a job or is nominated for election. I do not believe a girl applies to anything when she's having good fun with her friends and are seeing who is prettier."

A. The basis for cons argument is that beauty pageants make people feel bad about losing, so I don't see why this asinine definition matters.

B. An official pageant airing on TV is not an election, and actually isn't a job as a job is: a paid position of regular employment, so by their definition organized beauty pageants on TV actually do not have candidates either.

"throughout your time of insulting me and my belief."

A. This is kind of funny, pro advocates banning competitions involving beauty and the government getting into peoples lives on a global scale and victimizes them self.

I will bet these sources are third wave feminist bullsh1t, but first I have to point at that these sources will only talk about televised pageants, whereas pro advocated banning of all beauty pageants legally, including modelling, humans interaction, dating, dress up, etc.

First source: All the arguments made here are physical and have no evidence supporting them.. except one. Point three argues that hypersexualization is associated with eating disorders, low self esteem and depression, however it completely fails to relate this to pageants at all. So all the points in this source has no evidence, or do not relate themselves to beauty pageants.

Second: This source provides 0 scientific evidence for its claims. Read it for yourself, it makes claim on organized pageants without any studies. So as a piece of evidence, we could forget this.

Third: Again no scientific evidence, only logic claims, so we can dismiss this as scientific evidence.

Fourth: No related scientific evidence that is related, all scientific evidence did not give reason as to why beauty pageants would be banned, the opposite if anything.

"It's all up there buddy."

A. There was no scientific evidence there.

"Now of course there is winning and losing in a game. Children get mad when they lose in Monopoly. But beauty pageants are different. They refer to someones look, and of course people can find that hurtful if they don't win."

A. If beauty pageants make people have low self esteem based on look, games hurt people's self esteem based on skill, which by your asinine logic, would have the same effect. That, by your logic, would teach them they are only about their skill with that.

I never promoted plastic surgery, I just noted it as one of many possible options to improve at televised pageants. Because it is not particularly good, and I personally disagree with this, is somewhat irrelevant to the banning of pageants.

"But you can always work harder to become better."

A. Same with televised pageants and all beauty competitions, but sometimes people with natural skill just fare better with... anything.

"paying... in these competitions... pageants."

A. Okay, so you are arguing because of low self esteem more money will be spent... but with sports, many people who are not good use steroids to improve physically... so by this logic sports should be banned as well.

"If I'm bad at soccer, I could tryout for basketball or baseball... (many other examples.)"

A. Remember, we went over earlier this round how by definition whether pro wants to use the word pageants or competitions, all a pageant is by definition is a beauty competition, so with televised pageants you could try out for... fashion modelling, poker, dating, etc.

"Beauty pageants it's plain and simple."

A. Not true, we just went over that.

"Pretty or ugly."

A. With sports, its just good or bad.Yeah you could practice, but you could practice with beauty pageants as well. Like practicing questions, charisma, etc. But some one with natural skill could always beat you, with sports of pageants, and with your preposterous logic would drastically lower someones self esteem permanently.

"It hurts their mental health which is again explained in those heavy websites I gave you!"

A. Those websites did not contain relevant scientific evidence.

B. If it hurts their mental health since it teaches them only looks are important, and that is grounds for banning it which would have the effects I already stated and pro failed to effectively address, then we should ban sports because it teaches people only their skill at a particular sport is important. But we don't because that logic is asinine. Keep in mind completely voters, whatever word pro wants to use pageants or competitions, things like modelling, dating, etc. all fall under that category.
Debate Round No. 4
kylerez

Pro

Con keeps bringing up the argument "You said competitions, not pageants." And I should've emphasized that sooner. (2nd or 3rd round" Even though on the second round I stated, "And I believe Beauty Pageants should be officially or legally prohibited" Of course I could've made that statement more clear but he continues to bring it up every round, allowing more insults and to waste more time.

"In this case, what exactly falls under etc." Since were referring to pageants(yes pageants) you can't just sit kids up on the stage, you need equipment, candidates and budget.
"Yes there is, the kids are the organizers, and the parents are the authorization." We are talking about an official pageant. Understand Con knows this yet is still bringing this concepts into the mix, despite me emphasizing on official beauty competitions as pageants(in his perspective) he is still bring up things that are considered an unorganized national event.

Con understands I'm referring to official, organized, national pageants now but is still emphasizing that it's a competition.

"But you said competitions in the first round, second round is too late buddy." Second round is to late to emphasize my point!?!? But yet you stated,"Yeah maybe in the second and third rounds, but its too late." Whatever I say, whatever round, Con could just easily say it's too late, it's too soon, it's unethical.

"We already went over how a toddler playing dress up is a pageant, because by definition all a pageant is is a beauty competitions, so with further analysis, even if pro did say pageant, all a pageant is is any kind of beauty competition. SO, yes, modelling, dress up, etc. are in fact both beauty pageants AND competitions simultaneously" Do you have wax in your ears mate? Despite that little blue pocket dictionary you have there to sound more intelligent, I'm have already made my point throughout all of the rounds. But fine, if you still consider my standards of a pageant a lousy competition then yes.. An organized event, with equipment, costumes, candidates that have properly applied, authorization, budgeted event, doctors in case a medical procedure need's to take place, etc. If that is still considered a lousy competition from your dictionary... then yes. It should be banned.

"The basis for cons argument is that beauty pageants make people feel bad about losing, so I don't see why this asinine definition matters. Or maybe because it can cause them mental depression or the feeling of being ugly and embarrassed. Which I have stated multiple times throughout round 3 and 4.

"An official pageant airing on TV is not an election, and actually isn't a job as a job is: a paid position of regular employment, so by their definition organized beauty pageants on TV actually do not have candidates either" Con loves using his dictionary terms against my argument. Well when my father tell's me it's my job to take out the trash today I have to decline since it's not a paid position of regular employment. Sorry Dad.

"This is kind of funny, pro advocates banning competitions involving beauty and the government getting into peoples lives on a global scale and victimizes them self." The government will not show up to someones home and send them to jail. Once again, Con is using the "He said competition the first round" excuse. Official beauty pageants with the standards that I have emphasized throughout my argument will be banned. And that may seem insulting but there is actually a commercial beauty pageant industry that would end it's production. For example, if smoking was banned in the United States, smoking industries would stop producing for that country. Along with beauty pageants, it would practically be impossible to make it a national, organized event since the companies with authorization would most likely shut down.

Here's evidence supporting these industries do exist. http://www.miss-hhdfp.com...

"I will bet these sources are third wave feminist bullsh1t, but first I have to point at that these sources will only talk about televised pageants, whereas pro advocated banning of all beauty pageants legally, including modelling, humans interaction, dating, dress up, etc."

I have never said anything about modelling, dating and human interaction being associated with Beauty Pageants. Modeling- is the work of fashion... Modeling is used to promote items, perhaps for profit. Now of course modeling could be used for Beauty Competitions.. I mean PAGEANTS.. But modeling would still exist... (Posters, selling an item, movies/TV, etc) it just will be prohibited on a televised, national, organized, stage with candidates that play a role in a competition resulting in the most pretty girl winning, with proper equipment and the other standards I named. I know I'm making it sound complex but Con keeps referring to "Competition refers to Pageant. Toddler gets arrested for playing with makeup! Pro should've made a clear definition about his perspective of competitions so I wouldn't have to point the same stick at him every remaining round."

"Again no scientific evidence, only logic claims, so we can dismiss this as scientific evidence." I give Con gratitude for looking into my evidence. He wanted evidence but obviously logic claims isn't enough. If it had logic claims... he would emphasize there is no scientific evidence...if there was scientific evidence.. he would emphasize there was no logic claims. Evidence is evidence and I still consider logical claims slight evidence to support myself.

"Okay, so you are arguing because of low self esteem more money will be spent... but with sports, many people who are not good use steroids to improve physically... so by this logic sports should be banned as well." Or the steroids themselves. The possession or sale of anabolic steroids without a valid prescription is illegal. Oh wait! They are to some extent! Yay! No of course con will say "Well why don't we just make plastic surgery illegal" or something along those lines. But plastic surgery has different uses. Steroids are constantly designed and used for sports.

" Remember, we went over earlier this round how by definition whether pro wants to use the word pageants or competitions, all a pageant is by definition is a beauty competition, so with televised pageants you could try out for... fashion modelling, poker, dating, etc."

Yes, I do remember. Fashion modelling would not be put up against other individuals though, along with poker and dating. A organized competitive pageant is focused on rank and judge on (mainly) peoples looks. Poker is not referring to that and modeling, you're not put up to see who's more pretty and who is the failure. What are you referring to with dating and I still don't understand why poker is in the mixture.

"With sports, its just good or bad.Yeah you could practice, but you could practice with beauty pageants as well. Like practicing questions, charisma, etc" Beauty Pageants are based on beauty most of the times, not charisma or questions asked. Now obviously Con would most likely enjoy evidence for that statement but there is no need. If you have watched a televised event of a beauty competition...PAGEANT. They focus more on the makeup, costumes. It's called beauty pageants for a reason.. and that is enough evidence.

Here's evidence anyway http://www.seventeen.com...

"Those websites did not contain relevant scientific evidence" Of course Con want's me to dive deep in the richness of the internet to find the scientific pie chart that will earn my respect and rescue my argument, "Competitive Beauty Pageants should be banned" but there are most likely many people that agree that a competitive event where the worth of a person is based mostly on their outside beauty is bad for a child. If beauty is required to win, imagine a child's perspective on losing Thank you Con for this great disscussion
SocialDemocrat

Con

"...you need equipment, candidates, and budget."

A.Okay equipment, costumes. Candidates, kids. Budget, money for costumes. Pro has officially conceded they want to arrest parents because their kids play dress up.

B. We already went over that all a pageant is is a beauty competition.

"We are talking about an official pageant."

A. Too late for you to make that assertion.

B. Dress up could be considered official.

C. By definition, all a pageant is is a beauty competition, so this point is useless.

"...despite me emphasizing on official beauty competitions as pageants."

A. Genius all a pageant is is a beauty competition of any kind.

"...official, organized, national."

A. Yeah by round two, you can't just throw sh1t in there and change it. Too bad this turned into a 50% semantics debate. Anyway, this assumption is subjective to them, and this point should be thrown away.

"Whatever I say, whatever round, Con could just easily say it's too late, it's too soon, it's unethical."

A. Ethics are separate from all of this.

B. I could unless it is the first round, if the debate organizer does not give definitions in the first round they say it, it is up to some one else. When you mix up your terms in the first damn round, you leave it up to some one else. In any case, we already went over how all a pageant is is a beauty competition.

"...if you still consider my standards of a pageant a lousy competition then yes..."

A. Pro concedes they want to legally charge all models and modelling companies as well as parents playing dress up, as well as anyone who ever rejects some one sexually based on looks as well as the person who got rejected.

B. Pro accepts the definition which dismantles their whole argument.

"...mental depression from feeling ugly and embarrassed."

A. So does human interaction possibly... and sports and all competition, be aware guys banning all competition leaves you with nothing but a stagnant society where no one can interact because people can be rejected.

"...I have to decline since it's not a paid position of regular employment."

A. Pro randomly makes up that people can only do things if they are jobs, which is false, do to the existence of volunteer work. And they accept my definition which dismantled another one of their arguments.

"The government will not show up to someones home and send them to jail."

A. When you legally prohibit something, there is at least a prison record (which could result in job loss) or fees (which could result in single mothers with kids getting evicted.)

B. Do not forget beauty competitions and pageants are the same thing.

"...standards that I have emphasized."

A. So it would have to be a pageant, and all beauty competitions are pageants, so yes you do prohibit dress up.

B. Your standard is that it is a pageant, and we have already went over how dress up and modelling are.

"Here's evidence supporting these industries do exist."

A. We already know that, that doesn't help your case.

"I never said anything about modelling, dating, and human interaction being associated with beauty pageants."

A. They are by definition, beauty pageants, they are.

"beauty competitions... I mean pageants."

A. They are the same thing.

"But modelling would still exist... (Posters, selling an item, movies/TV, etc.)

A. Guys pro just conceded here, we already know modelling is a beauty pageant, so they did just give me the debate.

"if there was scientific evidence... he would emphasize no logic claims. Evidence is evidence and I still consider logical claims slight evidence to support myself."

A. Okay if logical evidence is actually evidence, then I could use my own. Here we go-If you ban beauty competitions of the pretense of self esteem issues, to be consistent you would have to ban sports on the pretense of self esteem issues, as both have clear winners and losers.

"Or the steroids themselves."

A. If you ban steroids because they are an unfair way of improvement, you would have to ban makeup on the same pretense.

"But plastic surgery has different uses. Steroids are constantly designed and used for sports."

A. Plastic surgery is used for the purpose for looking "better" without long effort, steroids have the same purpose but for athletic ability. Also, as many people use makeup or get plastic surgery due to self esteem issues, people can get steroids because of insecurity on their physical strength but not organized sports, so pro is wrong, steroids are not always used for sports.

"Fashion modelling would not be put up against other individuals though."

A. When it comes to advertising clothing, yes they are. As if one product sells better on a specific model, by your own logic that could lead to self esteem issues.

"...along with poker and dating."

A. Poker is a game based on individual competition, and imagine this scenario, two people rivaling for the attention of someone they like romantically/sexually, one is rejected one is accepted, see the individual competition?

"What are you referring to with dating and I still don't understand why poker is in the mixture."

A. I gave scenarios of individual competition with dating, and with poker the art of bluffing is pretending your hand is stronger than it is by taking risky moves to intimidate your opponent, looks can play a huge part as the intimidation factor of your look can determine this. Some who looks less intimidating may suffer self esteem issues if they are passionate about poker.

"beauty pageants are based on beauty most of the time."

A. So apply your makeup more skillfully, and charisma plays a huge part in how people perceive how you look.

"It's called beauty pageants for a reason... and that is enough evidence."

A. No it isn't, a designated term for a practice is not enough evidence.

Dismantling the source: This source again contains no scientific evidence, only an anecdote that can not be verified as true or false.

Let me present my own arguments again: banning all pageants (beauty competitions) forces the government to spy on every single person on a global scale in order to make sure no one is partaking in pageants.

banning modelling would be bad for commerce: in many countries, modelling is a way to advertise clothing, sell them, and therefore bring in revenue (including tax revenue) which helps the economy.

The effect on low income households: if it was legally prohibited parents playing dress up with their toddlers would be banned and get a prison record (which could lose jobs) fees (which means they get evicted or they may have to go hungry for a day) or even jail time (which means their kids would be put into foster care or have to fend for themselves)

Civil rights: banning all pageants would make the government restrict all human interaction outside families, since people may get rejected due to looks which would be a pageant.

Inconsistency: Banning something under the pretense of low self esteem pushes the government to ban many things like sports, video games, etc.

insanity: the isolation involved with this ban may lead to insanity and extremely high murder and suicide rates, as well as anyone who interacted with another person recklessly would be arrested. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu...

Please do not award sources based on number of sources if they did not help the case and/or were dismantled as ineffective.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: queencoop// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better points in my opinion

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a restatement of the decision.
************************************************************************
Posted by Ragnar 11 months ago
Ragnar
I feel like if pro does not forfeit, he'll just use everyone should be given participation trophies type arguments.
Posted by ImaRealMeanie 11 months ago
ImaRealMeanie
I think I'll try this one out, but later if no one else takes it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.