The Instigator
Defender1999
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dawndawndawndawn
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Wearing no facial hair is not manly.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2014 Category: Fashion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,575 times Debate No: 44971
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

Defender1999

Pro

Rules and guidelines for the debate:

1: This is an informal debate, so there are structures or rebuttals of some sort- so people are allowed to bring new arguments if they wish for every rounds.
2: No insults or put down or any fallacious arguments e.g. appeal to majority, authority, circular or straw man arguments.
3:This debate will not start until on round 2 with the Pro starting it off and Con finishing off.
4: Cited sources can be listed on the last round of the debate.
5: A person cannot contend with the instigator unless he or she accepted the aforementioned rules of the debate.
6: Winning is certainly not the main point here- it's about to learn and to teach one another.

The debate starts officially on round 2 with Pro, for not the Con must reply and adhere to the rules of the statement above.

Good luck to the person who decides to participate in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Defender1999

Pro

Right, then though I should present my case why wearing not facial hair is not manly:

1: The wearing of facial hair is a sign and the start of a transition from a child to a man. Beards are a sign of manliness and of a natural adornment of what a man should be. Body hair and facial hair is what separates a man from a boy and what asunder a man from a woman. Body hairs and facial hair are the confirmation of manliness and affirmation of a masculine identity for male adolescents beginning their transition from a boy to a man. Beards are a natural feature of the masculine sexuality.

2: Facial hairs are a symbol of respect, status and honour. Too facial hairs are a sign of ferocity and fierceness expected from a man. it is a representation of embracing the "inner animal" of the man. in ancient times, ancient Egyptian pharaohs, though clean-shaven, wore false beards as a sign of imitating the god Osiris' divinity and divine reign and was mainly associated with religion (http://mentalfloss.com...). Throughout history, the wearing of beards by men is commonly associated with virility, masculinity, manliness and everything associated of what constitutes a man and even common in middle Eastern peoples, times during the Old Testament and even on Europe with the celtic and gallic tribes (http://www.academia.edu...).

3: Wearing no beards is commonly seen as being associated with effeminacy and having an appearance of clean-shaven implies of having an appearance of a woman. Though there are cases of beaded women, this has more to do with genetic anomaly and is not frequent among most women. Having no beards is a sign of meekness, weakness, gentleness and being soft. In the Old Testament times, cutting off a beard is a disgrace (2 Samuel 10:4) and cutting off a bird along with rent clothes was a symbol of mourning (Jer. 41:5, 48:37).

4: Now many might contend that true manliness lies in the intents of the heart and thoughts of the man, I doubtlessly agree with this but it does falsify the proposition that wearing no facial hair is "not manly". It might be contended too, that what you expresses outside of your character means of bringing out of what is inside you. Beards are just merely of an expression of the true manliness you're concealing inside you- respect, honesty, love, patience, truth and virtue.

Now, my opponent here might now show his expressions of what he thinks and probably his rebuttals too.
dawndawndawndawn

Con

( I reply in caps because it's easiest for me)

1: The wearing of facial hair is a sign and the start of a transition from a child to a man. SO ARE STINKY ARMPITS. Beards are a sign of manliness and of a natural adornment of what a man should be. Body hair and facial hair is what separates a man from a boy and what asunder a man from a woman. Body hairs and facial hair are the confirmation of manliness and affirmation of a masculine identity for male adolescents beginning their transition from a boy to a man. Beards are a natural feature of the masculine sexuality.
NO. BEHAVIOR IS WHAT MAKES A MAN A MAN. THERE ARE PLENTY OF MEN WHO HAVE LUXURIANT BEARDS BUT HORRID BEHAVIOR. THE BEARD DOES NOT MAKE THE MAN. SOME MEN ARE NOT, (FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD ) HORNY. THEIR BEARDS DO NOT MAKE THEM SEXUAL. SOME MEN ARE, NATURALLY, NOT HAIRY BUT ARE PLENTY SEXUAL AND SOME WOMEN ARE HAIRY BUT LOVELY.

2: Facial hairs are a symbol of respect, status and honour. NOPE. THE JUST GROW THERE, WITHOUT ANY THOUGHT WHATSOEVER. RESPECT IS EARNED, NOT GIVEN AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A BEARD. PLENTY OF MEN ARE TOO POOR TO GET TO A SINK TO SHAVE. SO, THE BEARD HAS NO STATUS WHATSOEVER. Too facial hairs are a sign of ferocity and fierceness expected from a man. NOPE. PLENTY OF WIMPS ARE WAY-HAIRY it is a representation of embracing the "inner animal" of the man. ARE YOU EXPOUSING POOR BEHAVIOR? in ancient times, ancient Egyptian pharaohs, though clean-shaven, wore false beards as a sign of imitating the god Osiris' divinity and divine reign and was mainly associated with religion (http://mentalfloss.com......). NO. EGYPTIANS REMOVED THEIR HAIR DUE TO SAND LICE. Throughout history, the wearing of beards by men is commonly associated with virility, masculinity, manliness and everything associated of what constitutes a man and even common in middle Eastern peoples, times during the Old Testament and even on Europe with the celtic and gallic tribes (http://www.academia.edu......).

ASSOCIATION DOES NOT ENSURE ACTUALITY.

3: Wearing no beards is commonly seen as being associated with effeminacy and having an appearance of clean-shaven implies of having an appearance of a woman. AND YET, THE PENIS IS, STILL, THERE AND SO IS THE "ADAM'S APPLE" Though there are cases of beaded women, this has more to do with genetic anomaly and is not frequent among most women. Having no beards is a sign of meekness, weakness, gentleness and being soft. THIS "SIGN" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE, ACTUAL, BEHAVIOR. In the Old Testament times, cutting off a beard is a disgrace (2 Samuel 10:4) AS IF ANYONE CARES TODAY and cutting off a bird along with rent clothes was a symbol of mourning (Jer. 41:5, 48:37). THERE ARE PLENTY OF WAYS TO MOURN

4: Now many might contend that true manliness lies in the intents of the heart and thoughts of the man, THE HEART IS A PUMPING MUSCLE FOR BLOOD AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EMOTION I doubtlessly agree with this but it does falsify the proposition that wearing no facial hair is "not manly". SO, WHY PULL IT UP AS A DEBATE THEN? It might be contended too, that what you expresses outside of your character means of bringing out of what is inside you. THIS IS A TOTAL "MAYBE". SPOT THE PSYCHOPATH AND MAKE NO MISTAKES IF YOU CAN GUESS WITHOUT ERROR. Beards are just merely of an expression of the true manliness you're concealing inside you- respect, honesty, love, patience, truth and virtue. THIS IS STYLISTIC CONJECTURE/YOUR OPINION AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE, ACTUAL, BEHAVIOR OF THE MAN.

BEARDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HONESTY.
BEARDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PATIENCE.
BEARDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH VIRTUE.

MANY, ANCIENT, PEOPLE'S REMOVED HAIR FOR HYGIENE-REASONS, NOT FOR STYLE-REASONS.
WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF FOOD THAT CAN GET CAUGHT OR LOOK AT "BEARD-RINGWORM"
YOU CAN SEE THEIR POINT
Debate Round No. 2
Defender1999

Pro

Defender1999 forfeited this round.
dawndawndawndawn

Con

Additionally, gentlemen.

if you put deodorant and/or antiperspirant
on your under-arm hairs,
it cannot perform.

Shave those nests off.
Debate Round No. 3
Defender1999

Pro

To dawndawndawn,

Please note that typing in caps is a sign of aggressive behaviour and a sign of shouting- a behaviour clearly to be rejected whenever chatting with someone on the net.

Response to the attempted refutations of the opponent:

'NO. BEHAVIOR IS WHAT MAKES A MAN A MAN. THERE ARE PLENTY OF MEN WHO HAVE LUXURIANT BEARDS BUT HORRID BEHAVIOR. THE BEARD DOES NOT MAKE THE MAN. SOME MEN ARE NOT, (FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD ) HORNY. THEIR BEARDS DO NOT MAKE THEM SEXUAL. SOME MEN ARE, NATURALLY, NOT HAIRY BUT ARE PLENTY SEXUAL AND SOME WOMEN ARE HAIRY BUT LOVELY.'

If you have read my post at number four, I have already stated that it does not falsify the proposition that wearing no facial hair is not manly- true manliness does lies at the behaviours and thoughts of the man inside him. It could be argued that explicit expression of a man might reveal something that is main and concrete values and attitudes a man has inside him. The outside might be tasty, but the inside is even much more tastier, if you get the idea of this saying. Outward expression of something might reveal us something the man hid inside himself.

'NOPE. IT JUST GROW THERE, WITHOUT ANY THOUGHT WHATSOEVER. RESPECT IS EARNED, NOT GIVEN AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A BEARD. PLENTY OF MEN ARE TOO POOR TO GET TO A SINK TO SHAVE.'.

True respect is never earned, it has been something given already for us, so "earning" to have it is just refining and enhancing that respect given to us already. If you have read my proposition, No. 2 just outlines what symbolism and a representation what a beard could bear. You also have to realise, I was recapping ideas that became prominent during ancient times and still given attention to even in modern times in association with facial hairs.

'NOPE. PLENTY OF WIMPS ARE WAY-HAIRY.'.

And those who are not too way hairy are also wimps. We could argue about this all over and over, but there's no need to argue about this since both sides are in the same boat whatsoever.

'ARE YOU EXPOUSING POOR BEHAVIOR?'

Now my opponent made an instant straw man out of the statements I have made. Does "inner animal" instantly means poor behaviour? Suppose somebody said to you, 'Inside you, is a heart of a lion.'. Does that mean then, that somebody meant as of you being bad-mannered inwardly? No. An "inner animal" could mean of bravery, courage, inspiration or honour too, it doesn't have to be equated with poor behaviour of all sorts.

'NO. EGYPTIANS REMOVED THEIR HAIR DUE TO SAND LICE'

Didn't I said'...though clean-shaven....'? I acknowledged their clean-shaven faces of Egyptians, but giving a reason why Egyptians wear false beards, because beards is a sign of royalty and divinity to them (as shown in some depictions of Osiris being explicitly bearded). The Egyptians were merely copying what their god looks like so they too can become "gods" of their own.

'ASSOCIATION DOES NOT ENSURE ACTUALITY.'

This is because everyone has different perspectives and values concerning about the meaning of beards of course. But if we strip away different interpretations and consider the original meaning , we will know for sure what ideas this concept stands for. For example, what does the red traffic light mean in the road? Stop where you are going in life? Stop and start to fix up problems? Or does it mean to stop the car before the traffic light? Association does ensure actuality and can be applied on certain circumstances.

'AND YET, THE PENIS IS, STILL, THERE AND SO IS THE "ADAM'S APPLE.'.

This has nothing to do with what we are discussing here right now. You are taking it literally when I said it metaphorically, hence you committed the literalist fallacy. You are being sarcastic and is a sign of put down, therefore you lose points for breaking rule #2, I have clearly stated the contender must abide by these rules and so am I if we are to debate.

'THIS "SIGN" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOUR.'.

Now is my opponent has erred in his or her ways. I am stating what ideas or concepts could be grouped with if a man has or has no beards whatsoever. Beards or no beards, there are some ideas and concepts that can be associated with if you have beard or no beard.

'AS IF ANYONE CARES TODAY.'.

My opponent broke the rule # 2 I have stated before this debate started and has put down my argument and calmly dismissed it than giving at least a polite answer for such. Hence, he or she lost a point for civility in this discussion.

'THERE ARE PLENTY OF WAYS TO MOURN'

You're missing the point, you're inserting your own subjective interpretations in one instance that I have recorded instead of basing interpretations as clearly given in the text.

'THE HEART IS A PUMPING MUSCLE FOR BLOOD AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EMOTION.'.

So, why do we still hear of news using the terms "The Sun will rise at 6 am' and, 'The sun will go down at 4 pm'? Yet we know the Earth spins around the sun right? This is what you call phenomenal language- a term for descriptive terms for everyday
situations. It's politically correct to use such terms and acceptable for using it.

'SO, WHY PULL IT UP AS A DEBATE THEN?'

Why then, have you decided to participate when it's common-sense to you that what counts is the inside, not the outside?
That is a silly question to ask, #4 is there to say that it does not falsify my proposition that, 'Wearing no facial hair is not manly' even if what counts is the inside, not outside. Plus, this is more of a "discussion" than debate anyway.

'THIS IS A TOTAL "MAYBE". SPOT THE PSYCHOPATH AND MAKE NO MISTAKES IF YOU CAN GUESS WITHOUT ERROR.'.

My opponent traded patience for rage, swapped patience with impatience and bargained foolishness over understanding. I grin at such whether my friend here is getting irritated at this debate and typing off furiously at my given proposals.

'THIS IS STYLISTIC CONJECTURE/YOUR OPINION AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE, ACTUAL, BEHAVIOR OF THE MAN.'.

Yet you said in your first response that what counts for a man is the behaviour not outwardly expressions, you contradicted yourself therefore, I am clearly expounding on the idea that, 'Behaviours what makes a man, not outward expressions.' in this sentence. You also committed the subjectivist fallacy, making an objective claim "subjective"- yet I made an objective claim here without relying on my subjective views as you do have one as well and you're relegating it to as "subjective".

'BEARDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HONESTY.
BEARDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PATIENCE.
BEARDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH VIRTUE.'

And arrogance and near put down-esque behaviours have nothing to do with this debate, you broke some rules you agreed on if you are to debate with me.

Too, straw man fallacy.That statement above simply means that an outward expression could be what is inside you, have you ever what my last sentence stands for?

'MANY, ANCIENT, PEOPLE'S REMOVED HAIR FOR HYGIENE-REASONS, NOT FOR STYLE-REASONS.
WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF FOOD THAT CAN GET CAUGHT OR LOOK AT "BEARD-RINGWORM"
YOU CAN SEE THEIR POINT.'.

Does this refute my propositions? Of course many people do something for lots of different reasons, common sense dictates us so. Some bearded men are as much as hygienic as clean-shaven men as well. Also, how easy it is to get off food with a wipe of a cloth or hands? Consider also this written account from webmd.com on beard-ringworm (http://www.webmd.com...):

'Ringworm is an infection on your skin, hair, or nails. It is caused by a fungus. Ringworm of the scalp occurs in children and
adults all over the world. It is most common in young children. Ringworm of the beard is not common.'.

So you can see, beard or no beard, you still get it; adult or kid, you still get it.

Next time, I encourage here my friend to learn to abide by the rules as so do am I also. Some of your responses are clear putdowns or insulting sarcasms which have no place in debates.

Sorry for late response, my priorities for school are taking over lately. But I do find time to juggle it up.
dawndawndawndawn

Con

"Please note that typing in caps is a sign of aggressive behaviour and a sign of shouting- a behaviour clearly to be rejected whenever chatting with someone on the net."
I STATED MY REASON AT THE BEGINNING.
I AM NOT SHOUTING.
THIS IS MY EASIEST WAY FOR CLARITY.
----
"Response to the attempted refutations of the opponent:"
"ATTEMPTED" IS A NEGATIVE COMMENT WITH NO SUBSTANCE AND IS RUDE.
----
"'NO. BEHAVIOR IS WHAT MAKES A MAN A MAN. THERE ARE PLENTY OF MEN WHO HAVE LUXURIANT BEARDS BUT HORRID BEHAVIOR. THE BEARD DOES NOT MAKE THE MAN. SOME MEN ARE NOT, (FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD ) HORNY. THEIR BEARDS DO NOT MAKE THEM SEXUAL. SOME MEN ARE, NATURALLY, NOT HAIRY BUT ARE PLENTY SEXUAL AND SOME WOMEN ARE HAIRY BUT LOVELY.'
If you have read my post at number four, I have already stated that it does not falsify the proposition that wearing no facial hair is not manly- true manliness does lies at the behaviours and thoughts of the man inside him."
THEN YOU HAVE REFUTED YOUR WHOLE DEBATE AND WE ARE, ONLY, DISCUSSING STYLE.
----
"It could be argued that explicit expression of a man might reveal something that is main and concrete values and attitudes a man has inside him. The outside might be tasty, but the inside is even much more tastier, if you get the idea of this saying. Outward expression of something might reveal us something the man hid inside himself."
BIG MAYBE AND, REALLY, NOT WORTH SAYING THAT *ALL* BEARDS MEAN X
-----
"'NOPE. IT JUST GROWS THERE, WITHOUT ANY THOUGHT WHATSOEVER. RESPECT IS EARNED, NOT GIVEN AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A BEARD. PLENTY OF MEN ARE TOO POOR TO GET TO A SINK TO SHAVE.'.
True respect is never earned, it has been something given already for us, so "earning" to have it is just refining and enhancing that respect given to us already."
NO. THAT IS A MODERN MISREPRESENTATION OF THE WORD 'RESPECT"
AND BECAUSE YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE NOT LEARNED POLITENESS.
RESPECT IS EARNED.
POLITENESS IS GIVEN.
----
" If you have read my proposition, No. 2 just outlines what symbolism and a representation what a beard could bear. You also have to realise, I was recapping ideas that became prominent during ancient times and still given attention to even in modern times in association with facial hairs."
I DO NOT have TO REALIZE ANYTHING. EITHER YOU HAVE MADE YOUR POINT OR YOU HAVE NOT.
THE ONLY POINT YOU MADE IN THE TWO SENTENCES, ABOVE, IS A STYLE-POINT
----
"'NOPE. PLENTY OF WIMPS ARE WAY-HAIRY.'.
And those who are not too way hairy are also wimps. We could argue about this all over and over, but there's no need to argue about this since both sides are in the same boat whatsoever."
YES. SO, YOUR WHOLE DEBATE POINT IS NOTHING BUT STYLE.
----
"'ARE YOU EXPOUSING POOR BEHAVIOR?'
Now my opponent made an instant straw man out of the statements I have made. Does "inner animal" instantly means poor behaviour? Suppose somebody said to you, 'Inside you, is a heart of a lion.'. Does that mean then, that somebody meant as of you being bad-mannered inwardly? No. An "inner animal" could mean of bravery, courage, inspiration or honour too, it doesn't have to be equated with poor behaviour of all sorts."
I DID NOT MAKE A "STRAW MAN". I ASKED A QUESTION."
"INNER-ANIMAL" IS, RATHER, A EUPHEMISM FOR "LESS-THAN CONTROLLED BEHAVIOR".
SO, I ASKED RATHER THAN ASSUMED.
----
"'NO. EGYPTIANS REMOVED THEIR HAIR DUE TO SAND LICE'
Didn't I said'...though clean-shaven....'? I acknowledged their clean-shaven faces of Egyptians, but giving a reason why Egyptians wear false beards, because beards is a sign of royalty and divinity to them (as shown in some depictions of Osiris being explicitly bearded). The Egyptians were merely copying what their god looks like so they too can become "gods" of their own.
'ASSOCIATION DOES NOT ENSURE ACTUALITY.'
This is because everyone has different perspectives and values concerning about the meaning of beards of course. But if we strip away different interpretations and consider the original meaning , we will know for sure what ideas this concept stands for. For example, what does the red traffic light mean in the road? Stop where you are going in life? Stop and start to fix up problems? Or does it mean to stop the car before the traffic light? Association does ensure actuality and can be applied on certain circumstances."
NOT FOR BEARDS.
--------------
"'AND YET, THE PENIS IS, STILL, THERE AND SO IS THE "ADAM'S APPLE.'.
This has nothing to do with what we are discussing here right now. You are taking it literally when I said it metaphorically, hence you committed the literalist fallacy. You are being sarcastic and is a sign of put down, therefore you lose points for breaking rule #2, I have clearly stated the contender must abide by these rules and so am I if we are to debate."
THE BEARD DOES NOT MAKE THE MAN. BEING BORN WITH MALE GENITALIA MAKES THE MAN.
YOU'RE, STILL, DISCUSSING STYLE AND YOU AREN'T THE ONE WHO GIVES THE POINTS.
-----
"'THIS "SIGN" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOUR.'.
Now is my opponent has erred in his or her ways. I am stating what ideas or concepts could be grouped with if a man has or has no beards whatsoever. Beards or no beards, there are some ideas and concepts that can be associated with if you have beard or no beard."
NOPE. IT'S ALL STYLE. WE MIGHT AS WELL DISCUSS NECKTIE STYLES AS EXAMPLES OF MANLY NESS OR TOOL-BELT WEARING.
------
"'AS IF ANYONE CARES TODAY.'.
My opponent broke the rule # 2 I have stated before this debate started and has put down my argument and calmly dismissed it than giving at least a polite answer for such. Hence, he or she lost a point for civility in this discussion."
YOU AREN'T GIVING THE POINTS. YOU are DISCUSSING, VERY, OLD FASHIONED IDEAS ABOUT BEARDS.
MOST MEN SHAVE IN THIS DAY AND AGE. SO, YES, MOST PEOPLE WILL NOT CARE TO JOIN YOU IN YOUR STYLE-CHOICES NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TELL THAT THEY AREN'T "REAL" MEN UNLESS THEY AGREE WITH YOU.
------
"'THERE ARE PLENTY OF WAYS TO MOURN'
You're missing the point, you're inserting your own subjective interpretations in one instance that I have recorded instead of basing interpretations as clearly given in the text." YOU ADDED IN THE BEARD-REMOVAL-FOR-MOURNING.
THAT WAS NOT YOUR, ORIGINAL, POINT.
-----
""'THE HEART IS A PUMPING MUSCLE FOR BLOOD AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EMOTION.'.
So, why do we still hear of news using the terms "The Sun will rise at 6 am' and, 'The sun will go down at 4 pm'? "
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE STUPID. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "WARMUP". THERE ARE NO MUSCLES IN YOUR "CORE".
THERE ARE ORGANS AND FOOD. NO ONE SHOULD WEAR A SHOE WITH A NON-RECTANGLE FRONT AND A LIFTED HEEL. PEOPLE DO ALL SORTS OF STUPID THINGS.
"Yet we know the Earth spins around the sun right? This is what you call phenomenal language- a term for descriptive terms for everydaysituations. It's politically correct to use such terms and acceptable for using it."
-------
"'SO, WHY PULL IT UP AS A DEBATE THEN?'
Why then, have you decided to participate when it's common-sense to you that what counts is the inside, not the outside?
That is a silly question to ask, #4 is there to say that it does not falsify my proposition that, 'Wearing no facial hair is not manly' even if what counts is the inside, not outside. Plus, this is more of a "discussion" than debate anyway."
DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE TYPING AT A DEBATE SITE?
-----
"'THIS IS A TOTAL "MAYBE". SPOT THE PSYCHOPATH AND MAKE NO MISTAKES IF YOU CAN GUESS WITHOUT ERROR.'.
My opponent traded patience for rage, swapped patience with impatience and bargained foolishness over understanding. I grin at such whether my friend here is getting irritated at this debate and typing off furiously at my given proposals."
YOU SAY THAT YOU CAN JUDGE THE INSIDE BY THE OUTSIDE. OK. SPOTTING A PSYCHOPATH SHOULD BE EASY FOR YOU THEN.
-----
"'THIS IS STYLISTIC CONJECTURE/YOUR OPINION AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE, ACTUAL, BEHAVIOR OF THE MAN.'.
Yet you said in your first response that what counts for a man is the behaviour not outwardly expressions, you contradicted yourself therefore, I am clearly expounding on the idea that, 'Behaviours what makes a man, not outward expressions.' in this sentence. You also committed the subjectivist fallacy, making an objective claim "subjective"- yet I made an objective claim here without relying on my subjective views as you do have one as well and you're relegating it to as "subjective"."
ALL STYLE. NOT THE MAN.
------
"'BEARDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HONESTY.BEARDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PATIENCE.BEARDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH VIRTUE.And arrogance and near put down-esque behaviours have nothing to do with this debate, you broke some rules you agreed on if you are to debate with me.Too, straw man fallacy.That statement above simply means that an outward expression could be what is inside you, have you ever what my last sentence stands for?"
ALL STYLE. NOT THE MAN
----
"'MANY, ANCIENT, PEOPLE'S REMOVED HAIR FOR HYGIENE-REASONS, NOT FOR STYLE-REASONS.
WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF FOOD THAT CAN GET CAUGHT OR LOOK AT "BEARD-RINGWORM"
YOU CAN SEE THEIR POINT.'.Does this refute my propositions? Of course many people do something for lots of different reasons, common sense dictates us so. Next time, I encourage here my friend to learn to abide by the rules as so do am I also. Some of your responses are clear putdowns or insulting sarcasms which have no place in debates."
YOUR USE OF THE WORD "FRIEND" IS NOT PART OF DEBATE.
Debate Round No. 4
Defender1999

Pro

Response:
'I STATED MY REASON AT THE BEGINNING.
I AM NOT SHOUTING.
THIS IS MY EASIEST WAY FOR CLARITY.'

You do not need to type all caps to emphasise your point on this debate, I can understand and read clearly what you are trying to state in this debate. But do understand that some people in the net find that typing in caps is offensive and means of shouting or yelling at them.

"ATTEMPTED" IS A NEGATIVE COMMENT WITH NO SUBSTANCE AND IS RUDE.

This is probably not rude, the word I have used is not denoting to insult and you can use the same word as much as I do to. In debates, it's clearly acceptable to use the word "attempted refutations of the opponent"- I am trying to counter-rebut your rebuttals just as someone would do in a debate.

THEN YOU HAVE REFUTED YOUR WHOLE DEBATE AND WE ARE, ONLY, DISCUSSING STYLE.

My opponent misunderstood what is the difference between what is contradictory and what is complementary, that statement I gave above is a complementation that manliness lies both in the inside and in the outside- it's a paradox anyways. Kindness and honesty of a person can lie both inside and outside of the person itself.

BIG MAYBE AND, REALLY, NOT WORTH SAYING THAT *ALL* BEARDS MEAN X

It's not worth much saying also that the heart is a pumping muscle of blood since people knew it's a politically-correct term to apply emotions and feelings to the heart anyway. Too, why bring up that 'the male biological parts are still there' saying when I said that having no beards is having an appearance of a woman? It's not worth much saying that because people can discern easily I am not referring to it as a literal meaning and applying a metaphorical understanding of the sense.

NO. THAT IS A MODERN MISREPRESENTATION OF THE WORD 'RESPECT"
AND BECAUSE YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE NOT LEARNED POLITENESS.
RESPECT IS EARNED.
POLITENESS IS GIVEN.

If there is someone here "misrepresenting" respect, it's you mostly. Those who say that respect is earned are not understanding the true nature of respect, respect has been mainly in us and been in other people before we or them have done anything that worths our honour to them. Even I respect those people who aren't much deserving of earning respect at
all. Respect ain't earned, it's a given gift for us.

This is insulting to me since I am a young person and have learned what is "politeness" before. What do you mean young people can't know "politeness"? Of course they can and ignorance doesn't fit the bill for such excuses. By seeing examples, they have known politeness, let experience teach them as well as words.

I DO NOT have TO REALIZE ANYTHING. EITHER YOU HAVE MADE YOUR POINT OR YOU HAVE NOT.
THE ONLY POINT YOU MADE IN THE TWO SENTENCES, ABOVE, IS A STYLE-POINT

I beg your pardon, but facial hairs are more than a "style" if you see more closely to it. It's a natural feature and a part of a man of what constitutes of a boy beginning the transition from childhood to adulthood. You should be proud of your natural body.

YES. SO, YOUR WHOLE DEBATE POINT IS NOTHING BUT STYLE.

Just as I said previously above, facial hairs are more than a style, it's a sign of our manliness as we begin the transition from a boy to a man- it's about adopting a new way of understanding things (understanding like an adult not a child) and maturing properly according to our age.

I DID NOT MAKE A "STRAW MAN". I ASKED A QUESTION."
"INNER-ANIMAL" IS, RATHER, A EUPHEMISM FOR "LESS-THAN CONTROLLED BEHAVIOR".
SO, I ASKED RATHER THAN ASSUMED.

"Inner animal" doesn't have to mean an unrestrained or leashed behaviour type, "inner animal" can mean courage, bravery, perseverance and standing up for your convictions.

NOT FOR BEARDS

I beg to differ, if you accept certain things that does prove "association is actuality", then what acceptable basis to exclude such beards? Aren't you being arbitrary of over picking and favouring other thing?.

THE BEARD DOES NOT MAKE THE MAN. BEING BORN WITH MALE GENITALIA MAKES THE MAN.
YOU'RE, STILL, DISCUSSING STYLE AND YOU AREN'T THE ONE WHO GIVES THE POINTS.

No no no, this has nothing to do with the male genitalia whatsoever. You're confusing "attributes" with "gained traits" here.
I am discussing more than just "style" and let me make clear of this, you agreed to participate on this debate if you abided by these rules as so am I. These rules were set up to make an orderly and constituted debate to avoid name-calling and offensive insults hurling at each other. This rule is not made for my self-serving reasons, but to conduct this debate properly and to apply it to myself and yours as well.

NOPE. IT'S ALL STYLE. WE MIGHT AS WELL DISCUSS NECKTIE STYLES AS EXAMPLES OF MANLY NESS OR TOOL-BELT WEARING.

Flaws in your comparison, beards aren't like those accessories you gave above, we're talking something that is in your body not something that is external and put it on your body.

YOU AREN'T GIVING THE POINTS. YOU are DISCUSSING, VERY, OLD FASHIONED IDEAS ABOUT BEARDS.
MOST MEN SHAVE IN THIS DAY AND AGE. SO, YES, MOST PEOPLE WILL NOT CARE TO JOIN YOU IN YOUR STYLE-CHOICES NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TELL THAT THEY AREN'T "REAL" MEN UNLESS THEY AGREE WITH YOU.

I am enforcing the "rules" not "dictating" about it. I abide by these rules in this debate and you keep ignoring as if it is a light thing, debates can't happen unless rules are first established and agreed onto. Plus, who says I am dictating what they should do? I am making a case for and trying to appeal to reason why facial hairs are manly.

Let me get this clear, there is no such thing as "new-fashioned" or "old-fashioned", all of those things are either based on already pre-existing ideas way ahead of them. There is nothing "new" or "old", even in ancient times like Greece or Rome or Egypt, most men don't shave at all.

YOU ADDED IN THE BEARD-REMOVAL-FOR-MOURNING.
THAT WAS NOT YOUR, ORIGINAL, POINT.

I beg your pardon? I am giving instances of such practices that shaving and tearing off beards is a sign of casting aside honour and face to showcase explicit mourning and grief.

BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE STUPID. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "WARMUP". THERE ARE NO MUSCLES IN YOUR "CORE".
THERE ARE ORGANS AND FOOD. NO ONE SHOULD WEAR A SHOE WITH A NON-RECTANGLE FRONT AND A LIFTED HEEL. PEOPLE DO ALL SORTS OF STUPID THINGS.

That's a silly objection, it's common-sense and it is clearly appropriate to use such terms even in our society today. I wear a shoe that has a roundish shape front, am I a stupid person? Do you do stupid things as well? So people who wear lifted heels are stupid? Is that what you are trying to imply?

DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE TYPING AT A DEBATE SITE?

May I ask you this, did you join debate.org to win debates and win your way or to take part into voicing and defending your beliefs and making a case for it and answering objections to your stance?

YOU SAY THAT YOU CAN JUDGE THE INSIDE BY THE OUTSIDE. OK. SPOTTING A PSYCHOPATH SHOULD BE EASY FOR YOU THEN.

Why is my opponent slow to understand my sayings? Does he or she not get it or is he or she just acting like that way to make himself or herself to look unreasonable, not me? Some psychopaths are not as "psychopaths"as you think, some psychopaths are smart at concealing their psychopathic behaviour and some demonstrate degrees of rationality in their thinking and perceptions.

ALL STYLE. NOT THE MAN

Tell me one reason why it is a style, and I will give you a thousand reasons why it isn't.

It's just more than a style that's why, it's a signal torch what separates us from childhood to adulthood.

(I don't need to tell you I am not being literalistic in here)

ALL STYLE. NOT THE MAN

Give me one reason why it is and I will give you a thousand why it isn't.

YOUR USE OF THE WORD "FRIEND" IS NOT PART OF DEBATE

So you do not appreciate that I treat my opponent with respect? Do you want to me deal harshly with you? Isn't civility a part in this debate? Isn't it a good thing to call even your enemy a "friend" of your own? Have you known the Golden Rule yet, sir/ma'am?
dawndawndawndawn

Con

I am not using caps to emphasize. It is the shortest way to reply to points and easiest for other readers to read,
as I stated.
--------------------------

" that statement I gave above is a complementation that manliness lies both in the inside and in the outside- it's a paradox anyways. Kindness and honesty of a person can lie both inside and outside of the person itself."

THEN, THIS DEBATE WAS POINTLESS.
---------------
"when I said that having no beards is having an appearance of a woman? It's not worth much saying that because people can discern easily I am not referring to it as a literal meaning and applying a metaphorical understanding of the sense."

THEN, THIS DEBATE WAS POINTLESS.
--------------------
"Those who say that respect is earned are not understanding the true nature of respect, respect has been mainly in us and been in other people before we or them have done anything that worths our honour to them. Even I respect those people who aren't much deserving of earning respect at
all. Respect ain't earned, it's a given gift for us."

THIS IS A SLANG INTERPRETATION OF "RESPECT".
RESPECT IS EARNED. POLITENESS IS GIVEN.
FORMAL SCHOOL IS OF USE ON THIS POINT.
SO ARE ETIQUETTE BOOKS
-------------
"facial hairs are more than a style, it's a sign of our manliness as we begin the transition from a boy to a man- it's about adopting a new way of understanding things (understanding like an adult not a child) and maturing properly according to our age."
SINCE REMOVING FACIAL HAIRS, AT THIS POINT IN HUMAN EXISTENCE, IS A CHOICE,
THEN, THIS IS ALL ABOUT STYLE.
LESS-HAIRY CULTURES HAVE PLENTY OF WAYS FOR A BOY TO PROVE THAT HE IS A MAN
BECAUSE BEHAVIOR MEANS FAR MORE THAN FACE-SPROUTS.
--------------------------------

YOU MIGHT STAND ON YOUR POINT AND GO FARTHER AND SAY THAT HAIRY BACKS
ARE THE ULTIMATE OF MANHOOD...THAT IF A MAN IS NOT GROWING HAIR ON ALL OF HIS SKIN,
WE MIGHT AS WELL TREAT HIM AS A SECOND-CLASS CITIZEN OR A CHILD.

LOWERED INSURANCE RATES FOR YOUNG MEN AFTER AGE 25 HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR APPEARANCE
EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THEIR BEHAVIOR.
NO INSURANCE COMPANY IS GOING TO SAY, "WELL, THIS GUY HAS A BEARD AND WILL,
THEREFORE, DRIVE HIS CAR WITH ADULT-LIKE RESPONSIBILITY".

APPEARANCE MEANS NOTHING.

YOU CANNOT SPOT A BAD PERSON BY WHETHER OR NOT THEY WEAR A BEARD OR BAD SHOES.
THE OUTWARD APPEARANCE DOE NOT REVEAL THE PEDOPHILE OR THE THIEF OF THE ONE WHO HURTS ANIMALS.
YOU are DISCUSSING, ONLY STYLE.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
If we say that men should not shave their faces or else they are not man enough,
then, women should never shave their legs or underarms because that would not be
womanly and guys SHOULD have hair on their backs because hair is all manly.

When we see it played out, the idea is, clearly, foolish
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Further, calcium is an ion that is necessary for muscle contraction.
During times of no food, low food or low calcium-intake, the body leeches calcium from the bones
for muscular actions like heart beat and lung function.
Salt is an ion that is necessary for nerve function.
...literally, like "zeros and ones", the salt goes in and out of the receptors, all over the body,
trillions of times per second.

Women need about 600 mg of calcium in the AM AND the PM.
The body cannot absorb a whole dose at once.
For men, it's 500 2x per day.
EVERY day.

Astronauts, in space, lose more bone in a month than a tiny, post-menopausal Asian or white
woman loses in a year. ( Order of most-loss - 1. Astronauts, 2. old ladies, 3. female swimmers, 4. lazy people).
Astronauts were given bikes in space but that did nothing for the bones.
It was, then, learned that bones need percussion i.e. stamping feet and clapping hands

DANCE ON PEOPLE! DANCE FOR BONE-HEALTH! WOOT WOOT
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
People wear bunched-up-toe shoes with a slight heel-lift because of stirrups.
Yep. Once up on a time, only rich people had horses and the shoes to ride
require that the feet stay in the stirrups...heel and a narrow enough toe to
slide the foot in there quickly.

The riding-style shoes, like whalebone corsets, stayed in the human mind
far beyond their usefulness.

Many neck, knee and posture problems are caused by the slight heel-lift and the bunched up toes.
NO foot and NO person does well in those shoes even if they were raised in them.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Bones are as brittle as glass without collagen and too rubberyish to stand up without minerals
and porous to start with.
Like the Eiffel Tower, bones would be too heavy to be strong if they did not have holes all over like pumice stone. Osteoporosis is just a furthering of the, already-existing, porosity
and we live three times as long as our ancestors, long enough to discover, osteoporosis, gray hair and atrophy.
Bone is active tissue. It changes in six-week cycles.
It breaks down and builds back up. If there is pressure on the bones, it builds back up in a shape that is affected by the pressure as when people get "bow-legged" from riding horses and how the pressure of braces on teeth, does not "move" the teeth but changes the jaw bone.

So, when we wear shoes with a 1/2 inch, 1 inch or 1.5 inch lift under the heel,
we are tipping the entire skeleton of bones into bad posture.
No one should ever wear a slight lift.
However, the fastest runners in the world run on the "balls of the feet" barefooted.
The foot does very well in a higher heel but only to the height that matches how the foot works on it's "ball". That is why ladies can do what they do in heels so well.

So, highish heels = "yes"
lowish heels = a BIG ' NO "!

Now, consider the baby's foot. It grows very quickly, more quickly than most parents can buy shoes.
We start those growing bones in a bunched-up-toe arrangement and, truly, it is a wonder that we manage to walk, run, dance at all.
We have yet to see how well humans can do because we are very bad at feet.
The, new Vibram Five Fingers Shoes ( stupid name , good shoes) STILL, have the little toes angled down.

Babies feet -toes- are straight across. Only bad-shoes-while-growing ruin that toe-angle.
We can cause good change by removing the heel lift but we can't do much about shrunken toe-angles that are grown there.
So, considering how prevalent is the wearing of bunched-up toes/slightly lifted heels, we must ask, "Why
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
I would like to know how to do fonts and colored fonts on this site, please
Posted by Defender1999 3 years ago
Defender1999
'The word "force" is - no where - in here. Please, try to be more careful.
Seriously, there are plenty of sections of the human races that are not hairy.
If you think that the facial hair indicates adult behavior or manliness, you need to get out more.
Mentally deficient, childish, cruel and just plain dumb men have plenty of beards and their behavior does not get better from the hirsutery'

And plenty that are hairy as well, it's old and arguing in a circle and it's endless. But majority appealing won't even help, it doesn't constitute what's right or wrong.

There exists fundamental factors what makes a man/adult or not- biological, physical, mental, social and spiritual. Haven't I said that before?

Does that falsify my proposition? I could say whole words about clean-shaven acting dumb and playing with madness. There are many well-meaning and smart bearded men too, is that gonna somehow falsify my stance? Again, we're really arguing in a whole lot of circle and it's endless, it's just elephant hurling at each other.
Posted by Defender1999 3 years ago
Defender1999
'I would sat that the word "decent" is not applicable because it implies that precise terminology is in decent.
I offer the word, "average" and agree with the rest of your point.
Please, state how and what and where you studied the feet.
I must point out the shoe stores are not a good example. They, do, sell style more than any thing else.
I am happy to answer your questions about the skeleton when I come home later.
I think that I can fit it in here in a couple of comments and I think that you will find the information as fascinating as I do. It is nice to be old and get better feet AND better posture.
It's not that I am so smart. I paid for this knowledge and was not born with it.
I am a vessel of my wonderful teachers.'.

The word "decent" is perfectly fine to use to highlight any well-meaning person can understand what you are saying and will deem it appropriate even if you said ,'Sunrise' or 'Sunset' or 'My heart is filled with emotions'. And that's what I have been saying all along, any average person will see it's perfectly fine to use such words.

Are you implying I am ignorant about the feet? The structures of the feet- 3 phalanges on toes; 2 on the big toes, five metatarsals and seven bones in the ankle with the main heel bone included. Don't try to insult my intelligence.

Plus, who cares about non-rectangular shoes or the shape of shoes anyway? Does it bother you, what matters you've got your feet covered and have something to wear at least.

'Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies...' don't boast about what you have learned at school. All humans are endowed with knowledge, hasn't the uneducated tribal man can know how to hunt and familiarise with the surroundings so that he may know how to capture his food? The more you learn, the more you know this knowledge will amount to nothing, some lasts forever and some don't.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
"BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE STUPID NO ONE SHOULD WEAR A SHOE WITH A NON-RECTANGLE FRONT AND A LIFTED HEEL. PEOPLE DO ALL SORTS OF STUPID THINGS.
That's a silly objection, PEOPLE ARE STUPID. it's common-sense NO. IT'S NOT. and it is clearly appropriate to use such terms even in our society today. SADLY. I wear a shoe that has a roundish shape front, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT STUDIED THE FEET OR BONES am I a stupid person? MOST PEOPLE ARE STUPID ABOUT FEET. Do you do stupid things as well? AFTER SO MANY YEARS, I HAVE WEEDED OUT MOST THAT HURT. So people who wear lifted heels are stupid? YEP. IT'S REALLY BAD. IT, NEGATIVELY, AFFECTS THE WHOLE SKELETON. Is that what you are trying to imply?...NOT 'IMPLY'...STATE.
Any decent person out there would tell you it's completely comfortable to use terms that seems to be in conflict with "scientific" facts. We still use the term "sunrise" and "sunset" and it's not sadly, it's common sense. I did studied about the feet and the bones FYI, plus go to any shoes store and see lots of shoes non-rectangle-shaped shoes. How come heels affect the skeleton badly? It makes walking difficult but the skeleton is still there on or off for the shoe heels."
I would sat that the word "decent" is not applicable because it implies that precise terminology is in decent.
I offer the word, "average" and agree with the rest of your point.
Please, state how and what and where you studied the feet.
I must point out the shoe stores are not a good example. They, do, sell style more than any thing else.
I am happy to answer your questions about the skeleton when I come home later.
I think that I can fit it in here in a couple of comments and I think that you will find the information as fascinating as I do. It is nice to be old and get better feet AND better posture.
It's not that I am so smart. I paid for this knowledge and was not born with it.
I am a vessel of my wonderful teachers
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
"'If we apply this thinking as one would if one embraced it,
we end up saying that flat-chested women aren't real females
and that tall children aren't young.

This application shows that the original statement is style, only, not substance.'.

More than style of course for beards, facial hair is what separates a man from a boy and the physical transition. We would well say there exists lots and lots of factors what makes us manly physical, mental or spiritual. That doesn't falsify my proposition of course.

Who says I want to force this idea to someone? Is persuasion the same as shoving down? No, persuasion gives some reasonable considerations why you should accept this or that. Plus, I think it's common sense for people to see how they relate and what they of beards especially for men."

The word "force" is - no where - in here. Please, try to be more careful.
Seriously, there are plenty of sections of the human races that are not hairy.
If you think that the facial hair indicates adult behavior or manliness, you need to get out more.
Mentally deficient, childish, cruel and just plain dumb men have plenty of beards and their behavior does not get better from the hirsutery
Posted by Defender1999 3 years ago
Defender1999
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE STUPID. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "WARMUP". THERE ARE NO MUSCLES IN YOUR "CORE".
THERE ARE ORGANS AND FOOD. NO ONE SHOULD WEAR A SHOE WITH A NON-RECTANGLE FRONT AND A LIFTED HEEL. PEOPLE DO ALL SORTS OF STUPID THINGS.

That's a silly objection, PEOPLE ARE STUPID. it's common-sense NO. IT'S NOT. and it is clearly appropriate to use such terms even in our society today. SADLY. I wear a shoe that has a roundish shape front, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT STUDIED THE FEET OR BONES am I a stupid person? MOST PEOPLE ARE STUPID ABOUT FEET. Do you do stupid things as well? AFTER SO MANY YEARS, I HAVE WEEDED OUT MOST THAT HURT. So people who wear lifted heels are stupid? YEP. IT'S REALLY BAD. IT, NEGATIVELY, AFFECTS THE WHOLE SKELETON. Is that what you are trying to imply?...NOT 'IMPLY'...STATE.

Any decent person out there would tell you it's completely comfortable to use terms that seems to be in conflict with "scientific" facts. We still use the term "sunrise" and "sunset" and it's not sadly, it's common sense. I did studied about the feet and the bones FYI, plus go to any shoes store and see lots of shoes non-rectangle-shaped shoes. How come heels affect the skeleton badly? It makes walking difficult but the skeleton is still there on or off for the shoe heels.
No votes have been placed for this debate.