seriusly important politics
Debate Rounds (2)
btw who determines which are ugly or beautiful
Contention 1: Everyone should uphold equality. No matter how ugly a person is, he still have to work and earn money. While you might say that they are born ugly and cannot help being ugly, it must be noted that ugly people have a choice to work unlike some disable people who wants to work but do not have a chance to do so. Besides, what about the less ugly people, isn't it unfair for them to work and earn lesser money than a ugly man who does not work at all? There is a saying that goes " You reap what you sow " We should credit a person based on his achievements, working attitudes and his hard work, not on his appearance. If what you have said was implemented, it would cause a lot of chaos and disagreement. This might even cause riots.
Contention 2: If what you said was true, there would be a economic depression. As we all know, a person need to have some money for him or her to be elected as a government. If a ugly person who earns a lot of money without doing anything, was to be elected due to his wealth, it would cause a country to literally collapse! We should all earn money based on our qualification, thus, it is ridiculous to give money or important jobs to lazy and incapable ugly people who earns money by sitting all day.
Contention 3: You are supposed to elaborate on who determines the ugliness of a person, however, you asked me the exact same question. Voters, this shows that my opponent is not sure about his claim.
In conclusion, I find this claim rather ridiculous has this claim promotes inequality, laziness, and prejudice. Thus, with greater understanding of this topic, one would agree with me and find that this claim has more cons than pros and is ridiculous.
Rebuttal 1: Like I said in Contention 1, you are correct in your statement. It is true that ugly people do not have a choice about being ugly, however they have the choice on whether they want to work hard or just slack off. Inner beauty- Substance, is more important than outer beauty-image. Without a good substance one cannot sustain a good image, the substance of a person always is the most important. Therefore, ugliness is hardly an excuse for free money.
In conclusion, it is a very straight forward fact that free money should not be given to ugly people. With deeper analysis, one would find this claim to have a lot of flaws. Therefore, it can be concluded that the harm of this claim outweighs the benefits of this claim.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 1 year ago
|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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: S&G. Pro never wrote in complete sentences: no capitalization and no periods. Arguments. Con successfully proved that ugly people should not be handed free money. It's unfair to non-ugly people; if ugly people can work, they should. Con also proved that there are enough ugly people that if they all just got free money, the economy would collapse.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.