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

seriusly important politics

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 714 times Debate No: 71717
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




all ugly people should be payed and never have to work unless they want to make big buks, but the more ugly, the more free Money, to balance the equation

btw who determines which are ugly or beautiful


I accept this debate and would like to convey my heartiest thanks to my opponent for starting this debate. I hope this debate will be interesting. Now, let's get the ball rolling!

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.
Debate Round No. 1


ugly people dont have a choice about being ugly, they just are


Hello once again, I shall proceed with the conclusion. Voters please vote fairly and give advices.

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.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Lookingatissues 3 years ago
Posted by vi spec week ago who the argument..
Lookingattheissues response to subject....."all ugly people should be paid and never have to work unless they want to make big bucks, but the more ugly, the more free Money, to balance the equation"..."
ugliness, As I said before is in the eye of the beholder, the biggest mistake that a person could make is in letting others decisions about you, effect how you perceive yourself, Those offering their opinions can't see the real you to know whether your a beautiful person or not.
To the subject, ....."all ugly people should be paid and never have to work unless they want to make big bucks, but the more ugly, the more free Money, to balance the equation"..."
What Criteria is to be used in determining who gets income without having to work ,would there be a scale , a little Ugly to totally ugly to determine how much free money a ugly person receives according to where on that scale a person fits..
If Ugly people receive free money and not have to work then beautiful people should have a basis for receiving compensation too, the pay scale based from plain looking, to a knock-out beauty Those most beautiful would then have to either marry a ugly person or go on welfare.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>Reported vote: Daktoria // Moderator action: removed<

3 points to Pro (arguments). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: This is probably the most bizarre vote I'm ever going to make, but when Con made points about "hard work" he basically lost the debate on two grounds. First, he ignored how ugliness affects social networking such that even hard work can fail to make a difference. Ugly people can work as hard as they want, but just because they're not liked, they end up not getting the credit they deserve. Second, "hard work" (in contrast to smart work) is defined in natural terms, and Pro said that ugly people just are what they are. Con gave meritocracy too much respect in this debate. In an ideal world, merit is everything, but we don't live in that ideal.}

[*Reason for removal*] This vote was reported for inserting its own opinions into its RFD, and that is exactly what it did. Pro really made no argument in this debate; Pro merely asserted with a two-line argument that ugly people should given free money and should not have to work. All the arguments asserted in this RFD about "social networking," people disliking ugly people, and the failings of meritocracy are all things that *Pro never said.* RFDs are required to vote on arguments *actually made* in the debate; judges should not just make up their own arguments as a reason to vote. Judges have an obligation to be tabula rasa (a blank slate), meaning they must judge the debate from the perspective of a reasonable, non-biased third party with no outside knowledge of the topic. An RFD that makes its own arguments is using outside knowledge and therefore fails to be tabula rasa.
Posted by Lookingatissues 3 years ago
all ugly people should be paided and never have to work unless they want to make big bucks, but the more ugly, the more free Money, to balance the equation
Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder, who determines who is ugly and who's not, I use to go with a girl who's picture was above the word, 'Ugly" in the dictionary. I went with a girl once who entered a beauty contest, and they took her citizenship papers away from her.
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
read the argument..
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 3 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: 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.