The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
14 Points

Sunglasses do more harm than good.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,745 times Debate No: 17319
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)




I saw this topic on the challenge period list once, but the author closed his or her account before anyone could accept. I find this topic interesting nonetheless.

Sunglasses, regular glasses tinted a dark shade, are worn on beaches, sunny towns, and other places. By accepting this challenge, the contender agrees that sunglasses do more overall harm rather than good.

1. No offensive language.
2. The first round is for introduction and agreement only.

I wish good luck to Pro.


Interesting debate. I would love to accept this debate.

For clarification, I, the Pro, am affirming the resolution in stating that sunglasses do more harm than good.

I look forward t my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you, Pro, for accepting the challenge. For another clarification, I, Con, believe that sunglasses do good more than they do harm.

According to, the definition for "sunglasses" is "eyeglasses. . . that protect the eyes from the glare of sunlight". Ultraviolet rays from the sun can cause cancer and sun burn as stated in source #2 below. To the eyes, exposure to sunlight can cause "welder's flash (photokeratitis or arc eye) and may lead to cataracts, pterygium, and pinguecula formation". Source #2 also states that protective eyewear helps block sunlight from the eyes and therefore stops these diseases and injuries from occurring.

Blind people wear sunglasses because, unlike people with healthy sight, they cannot tell whether or not they are being exposed to ultraviolet light. Sunglasses provide protection to blind people who are unable to take care of their own eyesight.

Though sunglasses are sometimes used for fashion, the majority of people who wear sunglasses wear them for protection. Sunglasses act as sunscreen for the eyes, so they do more good than harm.



I would like to start off with some definitions:

   [mawr-uhl, mor-] Show IPA
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

Spectacles that have tinted lenses. They are used to protect the eyes from bright sunlight, for special cases (e.g. fear of light) or for cosmetic reasons.

And now to my arguments.

Alright, so anyone who has had a pair of sunglasses must admit they have their advantages. They reduce the sun's glare to minimize damage from the sun and maximize comfort, they (as my opponent brought up) aid the blind in protecting their eyes, and they are used for aesthetic purposes (i.e. looking fashionable), but today, arguing as the Po, I would like to clarify why sunglasses, indeed, do more harm than good.

Contention 1: Immoral Uses
You may have wondered why I defined "moral" in my definitions, and here's why: Sunglasses allow one to partake in immoral acts.

- The beach. Everyone has seen people wearing sunglasses on the beach. Its the logical place to use them, but they allow one to stare at another person's body in an act of lust that is usually deemed immoral and at the very least rude. In the article below, the author is "people watching" and wishes he had a pair of sunglasses to hide the direction of his eyes. He continues, nonetheless, and when discovered has to pretend he was doing something else, for the subject gives him a rude stare. The subject he was staring at was a pretty woman.

-Cheating. It is well known that cheaters use any means necessary to give themselves an unfair advantage. Sunglasses are often used to aid cheaters in cheating. Below is an article on the use of sunglasses to cheat in poker games.
A video from Youtube on how to use sunglasses to cheat on a test is included in this argument.

Sunglasses aid one to partake in these immoral acts and more, and because of these things sunglasses do more harm than good.

Contention 2: Producers
Sunglasses have many different brands, and this makes one assume that there are many different producers. Not so. In the article below, it is showed who really makes theses sunglasses. In the case of almost all designer sunglasses, 70%, are produced by one company. An Italian company. Luxottica produces 70% of designer sunglasses sold in the U.S. in its factories in Italy. Not only does this take away American manufacturing jobs, but if based in the U.S. this company would be considered to have a monopoly on the designer sunglasses market. Not only do sunglasses take away jobs, but the company that produces a majority of them as control on that market. Perhaps this is why designer sunglasses are far more expensive than they need to be.

Now, if the sunglasses market was more diverse, cheaper, and were produced in the U.S., sunglasses would do more good than they do now, but unfortunately this is not the case. Sunglasses, the way they exist now, do more harm than good.

In conclusion, no one can doubt that sunglasses have their benefits. Unfortunately, sunglasses allow one to partake in immoral acts and hurt the U.S. economy by taking away jobs and keeping hold on the market in the hands of a single corporation. Therefore, I strongly affirm with the resolution by saying Sunglasses do more harm than good, and I ask voters to take my side on this debate.

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent's two main arguments are that sunglasses can be used immorally and that they damage our economy because the majority of designer sunglasses are manufactured in Italy by one company. These two situations are both not so important.

Pretty much anything can be used immorally. Water can be poisoned and given to people on the streets. Baskets can contain illegal drugs. You can put a cheat sheet inside a pen cap to cheat on a test (a video of this strategy can be found on YouTube). One cannot blame sunglasses for being used immorally, as everything has been used immorally at least once.

The great thing about our economy is that sunglasses aren't the only thing that can be sold. There are many more products to sell than sunglasses. Just because a few jobs are taken away, doesn't mean people can't look for new ones. Also, most countries have their own largest national export. Many products come to the U.S. from China already. For Italy, sunglasses are one of them. For Canada, maple syrup. Again, any product can take away jobs in the U.S. That is how economy works.


My opponent brought up a good point about how anything can be used immorally, but it still validates my point. No matter how many other objects can be used to do immoral things, sunglasses still promote more immoral behavior than good behavior. Thus I believe I win on this point.

Once again, my opponent brought up a good point about the economy, but my point still stands. America has a 9.2% unemployment rate, and those overseas sunglasses factory jobs hurt the U.S. job market, even if just by a little bit. Yes, countries have major exports, but often times those products can only be produced in those areas. Maple syrup in Canada is important because the Canadian climate is well suited for the production of high quality maple syrup, which is hard to do in America's climate. Sunglasses, however, can be produced just about anywhere.

In conclusion, sunglasses promote immoral behavior and hurt the American economy and job market. Also, in my opponent's second speech, he dropped his own arguments and merely refuted mine. I believe that for the reasons I have stated above, my impacts outweigh my opponent's. Sunglasses, therefore do more harm than good, as I hope I have proven in my arguments. Thus, I urge the voters to VOTE PRO!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by daley 7 years ago
i can't vote. no phone company for my country barbados is on the list so i can't confirm my id
Posted by shooterboss 7 years ago
If you agree with me, will you vote?
Posted by daley 7 years ago
I don't see how economic and moral matters can be more harmful than sickness. I mean, Pro was arguing that it is worse to stare at a woman immorally and loose a job, than to have damaged eyes! How silly; hasn't he ever been sick?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: con never touched on pro's point
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 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: "Canada's main export? Maple syrup"
Vote Placed by Double_R 7 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made better points at first but then abandoned them to focus on Pros argument. Pro stated that sunglasses are bad for the US economy which was not the resolution but Con validated it in his conclusion. This would have been an easy victory for Con if he stuck with his initial argument and refuted Pros assertion that the US economy was the subject of the resolution, but by allowing Pro to dictate the points in the debate he lost his arguments.