The Instigator
SJS
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Should media ban anorexic/eating disorder models (part two)

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 5 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,269 times Debate No: 49577
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

SJS

Pro

I started this debate so I can counter what the contender argued with previously.

Take a Victoria secret model for example.
Ruffle Triangle Top Add-2-Cups Halter Top

Do the models look anorexic? Yes. Is Victoria Secret a popular franchise? Yes. Many girls envy their slim bodies and many girls decide to starve themselves and become anorexic just because of an ad. I, for a girl, know that this is true and me myself have been conidering working out or going on a diet. Should this not be banned?

Also, this is not a violation of the "human rights". We are not fining them or throwing them in jail as you suggested. Just simply banning them to enforce the self-esteem of young girls, which is enforcing the human rights, am I correct?
Ragnar

Con

In the previous argument I cited human rights violations, lack of standards, actual racism in the proposal, all for the only benefit is hiding a problem instead of addressing it. All of which went unrefuted [1].

Current debate:
“me myself have been conidering working out or going on a diet. Should this not be banned?”
Currently your argument is actually self-refuting. Also please use spell check.
No, you going on a diet or hitting the gym should not be banned.
No, things that encourage that healthy behavior should also not be banned.
Eating is healthy, but too much of it is a problem, should eating also be banned? Of course not.

“Do the models look anorexic?”
No they do not. Look at how little of the skeletal structure is visible on their sternum. In the picture below the one on the left may suffer from anorexia, yet what benefit would come from punishing her for it, defining what she is or is not allowed to do with her life?

Not Victoria's Secret models

Is this the proposed standard on when to ban someone, when you on no objective standard, dislikes how someone looks?

Accusations against Victoria’s Secret
Further Victoria’s Secret models are not cast on the basis of how skinny they are, rather according to Sophia Neophitou-Apostolou the creative director: “It's about being show-ready, it's really like being an Olympian - they have to be in peak condition. It's not about being thin or anything like that - it's about being ready to perform and be the best you can be in that moment" [2].
A model passing out on the runaway from not eating, would harm the show. As this clearly demonstrates, the problem is self-regulating. Models are a type of athlete, by the same standards you’ve proposed, we would also have to ban being looking too skinny in any Olympic sport.

"Just simply banning them to enforce the self-esteem of young girls, which is enforcing the human rights, am I correct?”
Freedom is a human right [3], one that is not violated by someone else not looking how you would like them to look. Heck as I said before, a lot of people dislike how President Obama looks, maybe this even harms their self-esteem, should he be banned from politics for this reason of looking wrong? Oh he also smokes cigarettes, and is a role model, he could also be banned for that unhealthy habit… Or at least banned from having any pictures taken of him, as would be more fitting (equally bad) than banning models for mere perceived (as opposed to actual) unhealthy behavior.

Question
Is this proposed ban to be carried out solely by current media, or with government oversight?

Sources:
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.vogue.co.uk...
[3] http://www.humanrights.com...

Debate Round No. 1
SJS

Pro

Clearly you have ignored what I had to say. You really need to think of a new argument; you used it every round, every debate.

First of all, politics are a completely different matter. Who said Obama was a model? We are talking advertisement and cover models, not role models.

"A model passing out on the runaway from not eating, would harm the show," You are right. In fact, why would they hire anorexic models in the first place? That's why we DON'T WANT ANOREXIC MODELS. Gosh, do I have to repeat this every round? It is harmful to their appearance, health and appeal. Why are you countering that?
"Is this the proposed standard on when to ban someone, when you on no objective standard, dislikes how someone looks?" Let's say we are forming a campaign against unhealthy models. Do we deliberately pick out attractive women just because we are jealous of them? Let me ask you, when did I say I disliked their appearance?
"Heck as I said before, a lot of people dislike how President Obama looks, maybe this even harms their self-esteem, should he be banned from politics for this reason of looking wrong?" Heck as I said before that we are talking cover models not politics. Also, I stated in my previous counter that who says they disliked how they look? Plus, Obama isn't anorexic.

P.S. Sorry if I missed a letter. You should use common sense before offending me.
P.P.S. Sorry for being rude, I am pretty stressed out these days :(
P.P.P.S. Sure, you can help me do another one to defeat someone else. I have never been good at English class, so I'm new on debate.org so I can practice my language.
Ragnar

Con

“Clearly you have ignored what I had to say.”
As evidenced by me quoting it? As con in this debate, it is my duty to argue against the resolution.

“Who said Obama was a model?”
He is the main public face of the Republican Party. Models serve as the public faces to advertise various products. While there are distinctions, there are many parallels.
Also your reply it last time (along with issues of racism, witch trails, and the notion of wanting to hide a problem instead of fixing it, etc.) was literally “Gwyneth paltrow is not anorexic” [1]. As different races carry their weight differently, the issue of racism in application of this ban remains a firm danger.
This is talk of banning people from certain lines of work based solely on appearance, if it can be done to one profession, it may be done to another… Or at the least them being shown by the media, which would make politics hard if a politician is banned from being shown by the media (by appearing on camera, they are aiding in the sales of all advertised products; therefore are doing the same role as a model), for unhealthy behavior or hurting someone’s self-esteem.

“You are right. In fact, why would they hire anorexic models in the first place? That's why we DON'T WANT ANOREXIC MODELS. Gosh, do I have to repeat this every round?”
This was in reply to me pointing out “A model passing out on the runaway from not eating, would harm the show. As this clearly demonstrates, the problem is self-regulating.” Thus by agreeing with me, you’ve conceded the problem is already self-regulating. If a problem is self-regulating, there is no use to a ban.

“Let me ask you, when did I say I disliked their appearance?”
Round1: “Do the models look anorexic? Yes.” You built a case around banning certain models, based on how they look (as opposed to any medical standard). That implies you dislike their appearance; how anorexic they look.

“You really need to think of a new argument”
I’ve got two good ones for you…

Freedom of Speech
Given that no reply has been made to the cross examination question, I am inferring that this ban would be done at the government level (otherwise any single media outlet banning the models, would be moot as others would capitalize on the opening in the market).

  • “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” [4].

Artistic expression receives special protection, even if it makes some people uncomfortable. Models are engaging in artistic expression; if their dietary choices are a part of it, it is also protected.

Anorexic models are needed to fight anorexia
I believe the problem should not be hidden from the world, it should be faced and the victims helped. One way they are helped is through awareness ad campaigns, ones which use models…
Models required...

A ban on anorexic models, would cripple efforts to fight the anorexia. Not to mention, prevent the creation of such pieces of artwork as the music video for Christina Aguilera’s song Beautiful [5].

Sources:
[4] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[5] YouTube video
https://www.youtube.com...

Debate Round No. 2
SJS

Pro

SJS forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
SJS

Pro

SJS forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
SJS

Pro

SJS forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

Same result as the previous debate [1], only with pro expanding how self-refuting their case is. The models submitted for inspection, help people like pro commit to diet and exercise; and therefore should not be banned.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
@Actionsspeak: You're welcome, just a shame about the forfeiting. BTW, your vote on the previous one of these was one of the best votes I've seen on here (a null vote).
Posted by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
Thanks for re-doing this debate it was much better.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Sorry to hear that you're stressed out. For your next debate, I suggest trying a topic that you care less about; then tackle the ones you do care about when you have the flow of debating here. One of my earliest debates was "Ninjas Vs. Pirates" which I cared little about, and as such could have argued from either perspective on it.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Been very busy with school work, but if you reopen the challenge I will accept.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
SJSRagnarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear winner as Pro forfeited and never rebutted Cons arguments successfully. For this reason arguments and conduct go to Con.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
SJSRagnarTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, Con make stronger and mostly unrefuted arguments, and Con used sources. (Good job with cornell and humanrights)
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
SJSRagnarTied
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 forfeited argument, points pro.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 2 years ago
johnlubba
SJSRagnarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Unfortunately Pro conceded what could have turned out a decent enough debate.
Vote Placed by Benshapiro 2 years ago
Benshapiro
SJSRagnarTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF