Should it be okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap
Debate Rounds (3)
Thanks to Ellen for starting this debate. I dislike it when people start troll debates but I see no harm in accepting them in order to refute the troll, so I accept this debate. In what follows I will refute my opponent’s case.
The first problem with my opponent’s non-argument is one of subjectivity. How do we judge whether or not a person is pretty or ugly? What are the standards? I may find someone attractive but someone else may find the same person unattractive. Maybe there are people who find you ugly and want to make fun of you. How would that make you feel, Ellen?
The second problem with my opponent’s non-argument is that he/she has given us no reason why the
supposed ugliness of someone entails that we should treat him poorly. Why not say that we should treat attractive people like crap? It seems no less logical than my opponents resolution. Even if it is the case that prettiness and ugliness in people can objectively found, that does not mean that ugly people do not have a lot to offer other than their faces. Suppose an ugly person is a great film director. Should we ignore the fact that he is a great film director and simply treat him like crap because he is ugly. Suppose your boss is ugly. Should you treat him like crap? Probably not if you want to keep your job.
In conclusion, my opponent has no defense of his resolution. It has been negated.
Ugly people are often looked over for jobs, but if in the unlikely scenario that an ugly person is a boss then it's doubtful that the person would be rude to them at work. A lot of people have people they dislike the workplace, but they put up with it to earn their living for their families. I know I have a couple I don't like who work with me, but I keep it professional in the workplace.
However, you'll find in most places will take the better looking person over an ugly person when it comes to promotions or even hiring. And most people won't respect someone if they are really good at anything because of their face. So say if someone has a really beautiful voice for singing but a face like a pug, and then take another person who can sing but not as well as the ugly person chances are most people will vote for the better looking one. I read an article once that even babies like pretty faces over ugly ones.
And I don't know about beauty being subjective. I know of a girl back in High School that got made fun of by everyone for being ugly. No one thought she was pretty. There are just certain people that a lot of people can agree that is pretty and there are just certain people who are so ugly that it's rare for people to find them pretty. Majority usually rules. So if you get five out of a hundred people who say that someone is pretty while the other 95 say she is ugly, then that person is ugly.
Most ugly people are unhappy and bitter and take their problems out on other people. I've yet to meet a nice ugly person. Every time I see an ugly person I want to be mean right away to them. I feel anger and disgust with them. And most people I know feel this way. If I could get away with being rude to a boss for being ugly, I would. But I can't so I keep it professional and so does everyone else who is smart. But if we were allowed to make fun of ugly people, then it wouldn't matter either way since the boss already knows that it's okay. And so they wouldn't be allowed to fire them for it. Unfortunately we don't live in that kind of world.
The world would be a beautiful place if we could treat ugly people like crap all the time without consequence. And I'm not meaning overweight people. There are overweight people with pretty faces. I am just meaning ugly faces. No one should be allowed to harrass someone for their weight though. Unless they actually do have an ugly face as well.
In this round, Ellen has tried to explain why she believes that we should treat people with ugly faces like crap. Let us see if her arguments hold up under scrutiny.
It's not a troll post. I am being completely honest with my opinion.
If my opponent says she is being honest with her opinion, then I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt.
Ugly people are often looked over for jobs, but if…
My opponent’s first argument is that we should not treat ugly people like crap if we must engage them in the workplace. So now she has apparently changed her resolution from “We should treat ugly people like crap” to “We should treat ugly people like crap unless not doing so is advantageous to us”. Since this is a different point, it does not support the resolution laid out in round one, and she has offered no reason for it.
However, you'll find in [sic] most places will take the better looking person…
My opponent’s second argument is a classic fallacy first identified by the philosopher David Hume. My opponent simply states that ugly people are not liked as much as pretty people. Well, okay, that may be true in many circumstances, but that does not mean that it should be true. You cannot jump from what is the case to what ought to be the case. My opponent’s resolution was that we should treat ugly people like crap, but she has only pointed out that ugly people are treated like crap sometimes.
And I don't know about beauty being subjective…
My opponent’s third argument mistakes inter-subjectivity (subjective tastes that are shared) with objectivity. Just because several people have the same taste it does not make that taste objective. She also said that majority usually rules. Perhaps majority is a good way to decide what laws should be implemented, who becomes president etc. but it does tell us what is true or false. This is another well-known fallacy known as the “the democratic fallacy” or the “appeal to popularity”. Most people used to believe that the earth was flat, but did that make it true.
Most ugly people are unhappy and bitter and take their problems out on other people…
The statements my opponent made in this argument are not objective. They are only from her own personal experience. She has no scientific evidence that ugly people are unhappy and take their problems out on other people. Just because she has never met an ugly person who is nice does not mean that they do not exist. She has offered no evidence that this is the case.
The world would be a beautiful place if we could treat ugly people like crap…
My opponent makes it clear to us that she thinks that we should treat people with ugly faces like crap but not people with ugly bodies. She does not explain why she feels this way, and this does not support her resolution either.
In the first round, I gave two arguments to negate the resolution. Ellen’s response to the first one (about subjectivity) did not refute it and she argued beside the point. She ignored my second argument and instead only offered personal experience and observations about how ugly people are treated. These are both irrelevant.
Ellen has no case.
Ellen forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeited. I extend my arguments to the final round.
Proper spelling and grammar on both sides.
Pro proposed an offensive resolution. And rather than explicitly conceding, she just gave up and forfeited.
I refuted all of Pro's arguments, and she ingored all of mine, and forfeited.
My opponent used reliable sources but they were irrelevant to the debate. I did not require sources.
4 points to me for each vote. 0 points to my opponent.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con made it very clear that it is not okay to treat people with ugly faces like crap. Con refuted all of Pro's arguments, and Pro ignored almost all of Con's arguments. Thus, the argument point goes to Con. The conduct point goes also to Con because Pro forfeited his last round.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.