Staring at A Woman's Assets is a Form of a Compliment
First round cases, 2nd and 3rd is refutations. By the way, this isn't serious so have as much fun as you please.
Observation: Assets are defined as breasts(chest) or a$$(and anything in the vicinity thereof)
So my basic idea is that if I stare at a woman's chest or cute, perky a$$ (yes the description was necessary), it is due to the fact that i take interest in how well sculpted they are. It means I acknowledge the fact that the woman is gifted and I should not be punished for recognizing that fact. Why must a woman be angry if I am stating (through my stare) "holy smokes, you, ma'am, have something that is to be envied by other women." Is it bad if i find a woman appealing? Does the woman prefer i think her to be my ugly, sagging 70-year old neighbor? Of course not, women generally are flattered b complients, so why not be flattered by another compliment. Heck, if I run away with my legs crossed, my hands cupped, and me peeking over my shoulder at the woman's great chest repeating "DOWN DAMN IT", understand that means the woman is sexually attractive. (the situation was for dramatic effect).
Anyways, I await my opponent's reply. Good luck :).
I'll start off by refuting my opponent's observations:
Assets: breasts(chest) or a$$(and anything in the vicinity thereof)
Now, my opponent's entire case was based on how women should appreciate people staring at her assets because they should take it as a form of compliment on their body.
This is where I differentiate my case from my opponent's. PRO's case is that ALL women should appreciate this staring, but what he doesn't realize, is that he is throwing a blanket statement over women, and generalizing all of them. This is a fallacy.
While I agree that some women might appreciate men staring at assets (i.e. hookers), I disagree with my opponent based on the fact that not all women take staring as a form of compliment.
I will outline our burden of proofs.
PRO must prove that all women will appreciate staring of the assets. This was shown through the resolution title "Staring at A Woman's Assets is a Form of a Compliment", and through his statement: "So my basic idea is that if I stare at a woman's chest...", the underlined portion indicating that this should apply to any woman.
As CON I will negate the case by agreeing that some women take it as a form of compliment, but not ALL women. Pro states that ALL women appreciate staring, I will state that not all women appreciate staring.
Now to start my case:
1.a) Some women do not appreciate staring
This is obvious. Not all women appreciate people staring because it feels as if she is being violated by some pervert. This is a personal opinion. Some women appreciate this feeling, others do not. Therefore, not all women should take it as a form of compliment.
1.b) Rape Victims
Imagine you are a woman. You were just raped. It was the most horrifying experience of your life. Now you're standing on a bus, and hundreds of people are staring at your chest. Again, this would make you largely uncomfortable, and not take that staring as a compliment.
Furthermore, building on PRO's failed logic, he says that staring is a compliment to the women's body. Now let's take that a step further. Is raping a woman supposed to be a compliment to her body as well, that she is sexually attractive? Should that woman take the rape as a compliment? This clearly shows PRO's faulty logic. Obviously, no woman would take the rape as a compliment.
2. Some women are shy of their bodies
Another obvious one. Not all women appreciate their body types. Now PRO might say: "Who wouldn't like it if they had a smokin body?". Well, building on my first idea, a smoking body attracts attention. Some people are just naturally shy, and don't appreciate unwanted attention. This is a fact. So if a shy woman had a smoking body, would she not hate it? It would attract unwanted attention and stares, and this would be the last thing she wants. Therefore, not all women appreciate stares.
I clearly showed the flawed logic of PRO in 1b) and explained why some women will not take staring as a form of compliment 1a) and 2. Therefore, I have fulfilled my BOP and Pro has not.
To you, PRO.
I'll run through Con's presentation, move to Pro, then weigh the cases.
No refutation was rovided towards my observation. In fact the only refutation provided was through his own case(his points clash with mine). Note, however, he provides his refutation to the observation he made, not to my case.
The BoP's outlined by Con only outline what women already do, not what they should do (what I am arguing). Thus I outline these BoPs:
PRO: must prove that all women SHOULD appreciate staring of the assets. This was shown through the resolution title "Staring at A Woman's Assets is a Form of a Compliment", and through his statement: "So my basic idea is that if I stare at a woman'schest...", the underlined portion indicating that this should apply to any woman. (this was a spin on what the Con provided)
CON: must prove that staring at a woman's assets is not always a compliment. (I never stated women appreciate staring, I stated they like compliments[I was speaking of verbal compliments], so staring can be another form of a compliment.)
1.a) So my opponent establishes some women don't like staring, which i clearly establish in my case. this only speaks of what women already do, not what they should do. so this point can be turned for the Pro.
1.b) My opponent states rape victims have a right not to take staring as a compliment. First off, if a women is raped, i doubt the next thing she will think is "I will use a bus". But anyways, there is a HUGE leap the Con is making from staring to rape. Staring is enjoying what one sees, not infringing upon that women's right. Rape is violently overriding that woman's right, causing physical harm to that woman. No way would I agree rape is a compliment, because it induces PAIN, staring does not.
2) Can be simply solved by wearing non revealing clothes. Shy people(in the extent my opponent gives) tend to be reserved not only in speech, but in visual presentation as well, so this would not be a problem. Other than that, it causes no harm, thus I maintain that I am correct.
Drop the flawed logic point, I already have already refuted it, Con has outlined a weak BoP stating women don't like staring, so upholding this only means he is upholding that this resolution exists, because women don't like staring.
Let the audience note that my case remains unrefuted by opponent. Furthermore my opponent's case was dropped, so this extends on the fact that the Pro case reains unrefuted. Thus, I extend the Pro case.
The audience can clearly denote that I am winning since:
1)My case goes unrefuted
2)My opponent's case was properly refuted
3)The true BoP for the Pro was upheld
4)Con did not uphold the true BoP, only one that acknowledges what the resolution already understood.
First off, I would like to say, that I clearly did refute your argument. In fact, I think I did a good job, as a result of your extreme lack of analysis in your observation. Please note that PRO merely asked questions, and did not expand on those. All PRO did in the first round was re-iterate the resolution title, using different wording.
Also, as I stated in my CON analysis, PRO himself stated that all women appreciate staring, and that is what he must prove, lest there be a contradiction in his case.
Reconstruction of My Points:
I will flow through my opponent's layout, then analyze.
First I do concede to the idea that my opponent provided refutation. But, the only point he gave was that i must prove all women WILL enjoy staring. This is an impossible burden to uphold as i will prove under the BoP part.
Burden Of Proof Analysis
Con: My opponent's BoP is that staring SHOULD not be a form of a compliment (He must refute the ideology of the resolution) The "contradiction" my opponent outlined is false. I stated women like compliments. Since the intentions of staring are not harmful and in fact praising, staring SHOULD also be a compliment.
Pro:This is an impossible BoP to uphold since 1)Both Pro and Con acknowledge not all women enjoy staring. 2)The Pro's burden is outlined as should since Pro achieves to set a general idea is a good thing. Similar to the moral stating one SHOULD not kill, not one WILL not kill. It provides an ideology, not foretells actions. You drop Con's BoP on the grounds that it is an impossible BoP to achieve. Pro's, on the other hand, provides a fairer ground, while my opponent's deceitfully tries to set unreachable goals for the Pro. As for the whole "should" rant, my opponent rambles on about useless analogies (ie: I should become the tallest basketball player alive). Yet from his analogies, we understand that Con clearly does not know what should means so I will give him a definition:
Should- indicating one must act rightly, accordingly
Again I am not here to state that women WILL like staring, I am here to state that women SHOULD like staring. I guess my opponent should read my points better.
The "all women appreciate staring" was dropped so no backing to his BoP.
Reconstruction Of Points
Contention 1a) Dropped point on all women like staring. The remainder does not take away from my stance that women should enjoy staring.
Contention 1b)The "faulty logic" my opponent provides can clearly be refuted since 1)Rape is an outright violation of the right to security. Feeling unsafe and being unsafe are two completely different things. And either way i state that women should not feel unsafe because of staring. Furthermore, my opponent does not clarify as to how it causes mental trauma. 2)Rape harms both physically and Severely mentally. Staring does induce physical pain,nor severe mental pain. No extesive evidence exists yet for Con to use, so accept this as a valid point agreed on both my Pro ad Con. 3)The sexual nature of staring does not go to the point of physical ineraction.
Contention 2)Again I say SHOULD. This, contrary to what Con believes should meant(he should look at the definition I gave), means if they don't want to, they don't have to do so. But they recognize that this is one way to prevent the staring if they feel uncomfortable. I also stated this might not be a problem for some people since it would fit their expression. So, contrary to what Con believes (as we can tell by now is obviously flawed), I do not limit the freedom of expression, because I offer a solution to being uncomfortable, I do not enforce it.
I clearly uphold my BoP (the fair/proper one) and continue to show how my stance is unrefuted as well as correct.
So what we are left with here is a misinterpretation by Con, a flawed perception of should by Con, an impossible BoP by Con, flawed logic by Con, and refutations by Con that were dropped. Pro on the other hand is upholding his BoP, is standing with a reaffirmed case, and is providing a better logic.
Due to all this, I urge a Pro ballot.
Let me first start off by pointing out that PRO made no points to prove his case, that Staring at a Woman's Assets is a form of compliment. In the first round, he stated his stance, but did not argue to back that up. He merely refuted my arguments, but however well his refutations were, it is not sufficient enough to allow him to win the round.
Next, let me show you that PRO is changing the resolution of the debate. As the title of this debate clearly shows, the resolution is: Resolved: Staring at a woman's assets is a form of compliment. PRO tries to twist this into: Resolved: Staring at a woman's assets should be taken as a compliment. These are clearly not the same, and the first resolution should be taken because that is clearly definied in the title.
As I described, PRO still has not fulfilled his burden of proof. He has not proven that staring at a woman's assets is a form of a compliment, he tried to prove that women should take staring as a form of compliment but that is not the resolution. The resolution is that staring is a form of compliment, meaning it is taken universally as a form of compliment, meaning that everyone, all women, take staring as a form of compliment, not should take it as a form of compliment. It is like saying "Saying thank you is a form of politeness". It is accepted world wide as a form of politeness, hence the is. If it was not, it should be "Saying thank you should be a form of politeness." It is not my fault PRO wanted to set such a high BOP for himself. He must prove that staring at a woman's assets is accepted world wide as a compliment, because of the "is". With the is, there is no doubt that it is accepted as a compliment. Again, PRO is arguing that it should be a compliment, when the resolution is: it is a compliment.
Reconstruction of Points
In accordance to the title of this debate, I clearly proved that some women do not appreciate staring and as a result, do not take it as a compliment. Pro must prove that staring is a compliment not should be taken as a compliment, meaning that it is accepted as a compliment world wide.
Hence, I win on this point, as it was dropped by PRO.
PRO argues that my logic is flawed, since Rape violates rights and Staring does not, and as such, rape is not a compliment and staring is. Staring is also a violation of rights as it classifies as sexual harassment. Therefore, your argument is invalid. As staring violates rights, it is not classified as a compliment as you say, and therefore, I win on this point as PRO concedes that staring is not a compliment.
Again, this resolution is IS, meaning that staring is a form of compliment not staring should be taken as a form of compliment. Therefore, PRO drops this point, and I win on this one as well.
PRO clearly did not uphold his BOP.
1. He did not make any arguments to support his case.
2. He refuted my points based on the resolution of should be taken as compliment, not is a compliment when he made the debate himself. Therefore, he cannot argue that I am setting an impossible BOP for him.
In the end, all my points are left standing, and because PRO did not generate any arguments, he has nothing to support his side of the case.
As such, I have won this debate.
|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||5|