The Instigator
Vitreous
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hardcore.Pwnography
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Staring at A Woman's Assets is a Form of a Compliment

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 1 vote the winner is...
Hardcore.Pwnography
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,818 times Debate No: 22836
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Vitreous

Pro

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 :).
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

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.

Conclusion

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.
Debate Round No. 1
Vitreous

Pro

I'll run through Con's presentation, move to Pro, then weigh the cases.

Con Arguments

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.

Conclusion

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.

Pro Case

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.

Weighing

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.
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

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.

In fact, half of his argument were questions like: "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"

PRO does not give enough analysis. As such, my refutation was limited because there literally, was nothing to refute.

Understanding that, voters, it is obvious that my opponent has limited skill in debating.

Burden of Proof Analysis:

The CON

PRO agrees with the BOP I outlined for myself.
What I find odd is that in the latter part of the analysis, PRO makes a contradiction.

"(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.)"

"I never stated women appreciate staring, I stated they like compliments."

First, let me establish that this PRO applies to all women, from the term "they", therefore, this has the same meaning as the statement "All women like compliments."

Next, "Staring is another form of compliment."

Previously, PRO said that all women like compliments, and if staring is another form of compliment, all women therefore like staring.

The PRO

Now, PRO completely sets a low BOP for himself. He says that all women should appreciate staring, which is changed from my outline: all women will appreciate staring.

Now why is this unfair? Because people should do alot of things. You can say that someone should do anything. My opponent should join the army. I should become the tallest basketball player alive. I should shoot the president of the United States.

The point is, people should do alot of things, but that does not necessarily mean that the person will do it, or in this case, will appreciate the staring. Again, PRO is thinking too narrowly and generalizes all women as having one opinion, to should appreciate staring. This BOP that PRO has set for himself is too low and is not equal. Therefore, the BOP that I outlined previously is the one PRO should fulfill.

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:

Contention 1a)

As I pointed out, PRO himself stated that all women appreciate staring. Thus, this point is unrefuted by PRO. I stated that it is false, not all women appreciate staring, as it can feel like they are being violated. In fact, this does not even apply to just women.

http://www.socialanxietysupport.com...

People just generally hate strangers staring at them in public. Thus, my point still stands, because if people hate others staring at them, they should not, and will not take that as a compliment. That is common sense.

Contention 1b)

PRO misrepresents my argument. I did not say that rape victims have a right not to take staring as a compliment.
I merely extended PRO's case so that he can see the fail logic he is using.

Pro states that all women appreciate compliments, and staring is a form of a compliment because you are applauding the woman's figure. If you take that a step further, rape would also be considered a form of compliment because you are applauding her figure. In PRO's own words, "holy smokes, you, ma'am, have something that is to be envied by other women" and he "should not be punished for recognizing that fact".

This essentially is what PRO is saying. Staring is sexual in nature, and since rape is also sexual in nature, PRO's logic should also apply to rape. Thus, PRO condones rape as a compliment.

Now PRO goes on to deny that he thinks rape as a compliment. This is a huge contradiction, as using his logic, he condoned rape as a compliment. But let's go along with it anyways.

Now, assuming PRO does not think rape is a compliment, he goes on to say that "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."

Staring is in fact an infringement on women's rights. It infringes the right to security. If someone kept staring at you, you would feel unsafe and uncomfortable. In fact, continuous staring is a form of sexual harassment. Thus it infringes on women's rights.

Next. PRO says rape infringes on women's rights. Okay, I agree. Then PRO goes on to say that rape is not a compliment because it induces pain, and staring does not. Hold up. Staring does cause pain, emotional pain, trauma. I agree that it is not physical pain, like rape, but you will still feel pain from having almost all the guys stare at your chest. It causes emotional harm and trauma. Who are you to classify whether one is more painful than the other? They are equally painful.

PRO says that rape causes pain, and thus it's not a compliment. I proved that staring causes emotional pain and trauma, still pain, and following PRO's logic, it is not a compliment. This is a contradction, directly clashing with the resolution title: "Staring is a form of compliment" because I just proved that "Staring is not a form of compliment" using PRO's logic.

Now, I'm thoroughly confused. It seems that PRO doesn't know what he himself is arguing in, since using his logic, rape is a form of compliment. Then he says that Rape is not a form of compliment, and using the same reasoning, I proved that staring is not a compliment.

Therefore, it is obvious PRO has conceded this debate.

Contention 2.

PRO says that to avoid stares, people should wear non-revealing clothes. Okay stop right there. WTF?!?!?

Okay, first, let me establish that everyone has the freedom of expression, to express themselves however way they want, be it clothing, art, whatever.
Now, what you wear, is a form of expression.

http://www.dhstelegram.com...

Now, PRO wants to limit women's freedom of expression, just so that he can stare at women's assets. That's ridiculous.

What PRO has essentially said is that if people don't want others staring at their bodies, they should wear less revealing clothes. That's not the proper solution. People have the right to wear whatever they want, and they should not have to forsake that just to prevent staring, as staring is an infringement on rights.

Therefore, PRO is obviously flawed in his logic.

Conclusion

PRO has not fulfilled his BOP that all women enjoy people staring at them.
As being stared at infringes on the rights of the woman, they should not have to take it as a compliment. As such, it is obvious that I have won this debate.

Vote CON


Debate Round No. 2
Vitreous

Pro

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.

Conclusion
I clearly uphold my BoP (the fair/proper one) and continue to show how my stance is unrefuted as well as correct.

Analyze
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.
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

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

Contention 1a)

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.

Contention 1b)

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.

Contention 2

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.

Conclusion

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.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
VitreousHardcore.PwnographyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly wins the burden of proof analysis vis a vis the wording of the resolution. Pro did not fulfill his burden of proof because he did not prove that staring is universally a compliment. Moreover, Con completely trounces the pro in terms of the emotional harms and objectification analysis. This was a clean Con win. Sources go Con because Pro provided absolutely nothing to back up his analysis.