The Instigator
keerthanamurthy25
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

beauty contest should be encouraged or not?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2015 Category: Fashion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 852 times Debate No: 77653
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

keerthanamurthy25

Pro

Beauty contests, in and of themselves, are pretty harmless. What are more harmful are modern industries, including, but not limited to, magazines, advertising, presentation of women in sitcoms and movies, cosmetics, cosmetic surgery, and the fashion industry. Women are more harmed by an everyday bombardment of advertising, more than that which is inherent within a beauty contest. Besides, the women agree to, and usually invest a lot of money into, beauty contests. They aren't forced to do so.
tejretics

Con

I negate. Holding any positive moral obligation has a net negative impact on society at the macropolitical level, and would eventually allow a totalitarian, fascist regime of regulation that results in oppression and cruelty.


Observation One: The resolution’s usage of the word ‘should’ implies a moral obligation, as in ‘ought’. In other words, the resolution states that there is a positive moral obligation to encourage beauty contests. As such, the Aff case must appeal to a position that normativity requires beauty contests, and lack of beauty contests is injustice.


Observation Two: Aff has the sole burden of proof to affirm, since one does not hold another to a positive moral obligation for no reason.


Kritik: Moral obligations do not exist.


I will be presenting a Kritik of the resolution. A ‘Kritik’ is an argument that challenges an assumption in the resolution. The resolution’s usage of the term ‘should’ implies that a moral obligation actually exists, which is doubtful in lack for epistemological grounds for morality and normativity.


This was first observed by philosopher Nietzsche, who boldly proclaimed: “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” [1] In other words, God was once the epistemological ground for morality, but without the firm grip of God, we lack any epistemological grounds for moral action.


One may argue that morality does exist without the concept of God, but it is merely desire for morality, not morality itself. Such desire for normativity eventually turns to a moralizing vengeance, since we have lost all epistemological ground for morality except in subjective human perception. Brown writes:


the loss of epistemological ground for … morality … does not quash the moral impulse itself. … [instead] it paradoxically evinces precisely the nihilism, the antilife bearing that it moralizes against in its nemesis.” [2]


Lack of epistemological grounds for morality means lack of moral obligation.


Brown 2, “the insistence on the importance of transcendent ideals … paradoxically affirms rather than challenges a figuring of the political domain as relentlessly amoral. It places the idealist actor at a distance … thus inevitably disappointed by it and … even prepared to renounce politics because of its failures and compromises … genealogy formulated by Nietzsche might function as … a ground that, … embraces the contingent elements of political life and also faces … the relative arbitrariness of values.” [3]


The desire for normativity as a moral obligation also holds a flawed conception of desire itself. Desire is merely a constant flow of production, traditionally understood as wanting a real object. When the desire turns into a desire for moral obligations and normativity, it allows a replication of totalitarianism and infringement of core equality. This invokes desire of what justice and normativity lack, a lack-based conception of desire. Deleuze and Guattari write:


Desire is the set of passive synthesis that engineer partial objects, flows, and bodies, and that function as units of production. ...Desire does not lack anything; … . It is, rather, ... desire that lacks a fixed subject; there is no fixed subject unless there is repression … Desire does not express a molar lack within the subject; rather, the molar organization deprives desire of its objective being. ... Lack is created, planned, and organized in and through social production. It is counterproduced as a result of the pressure of antiproduction; the latter falls back on the forces of production and appropriates them. ...The deliberate creation of lack as a function of market economy is the art of a dominant class. This involves deliberately organizing wants and needs amid an abundance of production; making all of desire teeter and fall victim to the great fear of not having one's needs satisfied; and making the object dependent upon a real production that is supposedly exterior to desire ... while at the same time the production of desire is categorized as fantasy and nothing but fantasy.” [4]


This flawed, anti-production form of desire only results in totalitarianism – moral obligations result in over-regulation and fascism. Deleuze and Guattari 2, “The ... thesis of schizoanalysis is therefore the distinction between two poles of social libidinal investment: the paranoiac, reactionary, and fascisizing pole, and the schizoid revolutionary pole.” [5] Such a flawed conception of desire only results in fascism.


The links – the resolution’s usage of the term ‘should’ implies the existence of a positive moral obligation and the desire for normativity, both of which are flawed. The impacts – a lack-based conception of desire, and over-regulation via moral obligations without epistemological ground for morality, result in fascism, totalitarianism, and deny all rights of freedom and equality.


The alternative: vote negative, since the Aff position causes sheer damage to the constructs of society. The K negates sufficiently.


References:


[1] – Friedrich Nietzsche. The Gay Science, Section 25: “The Madman.” Translated by Walter Kaufman.

[2] – Wendy Brown. Politics Out of History, pp. 28-29.

[3] – Ibid, pp. 95-98.

[4] – Giles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. Anti-Oedipus, pp. 26-29.

[5] – Ibid.

Debate Round No. 1
keerthanamurthy25

Pro

keerthanamurthy25 forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

Pro's argument is a defense, and my Kritik negates even if Pro's argument stands. As such, I need only extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
keerthanamurthy25

Pro

keerthanamurthy25 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Hey, Nice K :D
Posted by greatkitteh 1 year ago
greatkitteh
T-t-t-the Kirtik Bomb ;~;
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
keerthanamurthy25tejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
keerthanamurthy25tejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con as Pro FF'd. Pro did not make any positive arguments, only defended beauty contests against common arguments against them. Therefore, he/she demonstrated, at most, that beauty contests should not be discouraged, but never demonstrated that they should be encouraged. By contrast, Con, although relying on some appeals to authority, made a valid K against encouraging beauty contests, and the K went unchallenged. Therefore, arguments goes to Con. Sources to Con, who used the sole sources.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
keerthanamurthy25tejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited many times. This is bad conduct.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
keerthanamurthy25tejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by greatkitteh 1 year ago
greatkitteh
keerthanamurthy25tejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF