The Instigator
fdsaBIG
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

zits are cool

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 8 votes the winner is...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2014 Category: Fashion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 917 times Debate No: 59402
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (8)

 

fdsaBIG

Pro

they are the new sexiest thing
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

My opponent asserts that "zits are cool." He obviously has the burden of proof by virtue of the fact that he is affirming this resolution.

I await his aguments and proof in fulfillment of his burden.
Debate Round No. 1
fdsaBIG

Pro

actualy im zit free :( but did you know that every new celebrety has at least one. I am so jelious. Even though most loosers will tell you they arn't, the truth is 97.8 persent of people who say zits are unatractive hate homosexuals
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

Resolved: Zits are cool

Burden Analysis

My opponent, Pro, is affirming the resolution. Therefore, the entirety of the burden of proof lies with him.


I will offer my own argument, which is more of a framework for this debate, and then will explain why my opponent's argument do not fit the bill for fulfilling his burden of proof.

First, I will offer some definitions.

Zits -- a small, red, swollen spot on the skin (1)

Cool (in context) -- fashionably attractive or impressive (2)

(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) Google definition "cool"

Next, here is what my opponent must be able to prove conclusively in order to win this debate:


P1) If zits possess (x), (y), and (z) criteria, they are objectively "cool."
P2) Zits possess (x), (y), and (z) criteria.
C1) Therefore, zits are objective "cool."


Indeed, Pro is affirming a resolution with the objective term "cool." Therefore, he must not only be able to define this criteria by which he affirms objectivity and an objective conception of coolness -- establishing, of course, why these criteria fit the bill and advance his burden of proof -- but also prove that zits possess these criteria which make the objectively cool.

The primary point, however, is that whether or not something is cool or not is subjective. What I consider "cool," or even the criteria by which I judge coolness, will differ from what Pro thinks is cool or the criteria by which he judges coolness. Others will have different criteria and this extends ad infinitum. There is no objective or universal criteria or conception of coolness. Pro must be able to prove that there is. Otherwise, if one person disagrees with his supposition, he loses this debate.

Let's syllogize that argument:

P1) If one person disagrees with the notion that zits are cool, they are not objectively cool.
P2) I, JohnMaynardKeynes, disagree with the notion that zits are cool.
C1) Therefore, zits are not objectively cool.
P3) If zits are not objectively cool, Pro cannot fulfill his burden of proof.
C2) Therefore, Pro cannot fulfill his burden of proof.

With that out of the way, I will now rebut Pro's arguments.

Pro says, "actualy im zit free :( "

This is irrelevant. He provides a frown face which is to lead us to believe that he wishes he had a zit. Pro therefore must think that zits are cool. However, this is his subjective opinion and by no means is it universal.


Also note Pro's grammatical errors. What he meant to say was, "Actually, I'm zit free." Please take this into account, voters.

Pro says, "but did you know that every new celebrety has at least one"

Pro should have capitalized "but," ended his last statement with a period, correctly spelled "celebrity," and ended his sentence with a question mark.

Second, Pro has provided us with no evidence of this claim or why this could possibly establish criteria for objective coolness. Why does he only note new celebrities? Why doesn't Jennifer Aniston count? She has done commerical for her gorgeous, zit-free skin, and she is widely considered as "cool" (See the youtube video).

Third, there are plenty of celebrities without perfect skin. How you define "new" is subjective, of course (meaning that what Pro considers new may be different from what someone else considers new, so the distinction is largely null), but Pro hasn't established this criterion, anyway, or why we should prioritize new over old.

The list of celebrities with the "Best skin in Hollywood" -- which means zit-free -- according to starpulse.com (http://www.starpulse.com...) are as follows:

1. Nicole Kidman
2. Ashkton Kutcher
3. Lucy Liu
4. Halley Berry
5. Ryan Reynolds
6. Liv Tyler
7. Beyonce Knowles
8. Jennifer Love Hewitt
9. Hayden Panettiere
10. Reese Witherspoon

And if Pro wants an example of a "new" celebrity, without a zit, how about Sarah Hyland? As you can see (http://www.starpulse.com...) by looking at this image of her, she is zit-free!

Pro says, "I am so jelious."

First, he mispelled "jealous." Second, this is irrelevant.

Pro says, "Even though most loosers will tell you they arn't, the truth is 97.8 persent of people who say zits are unatractive hate homosexuals."

There are a lot of problems with this contention. he first and most glaring problem is that it doesn't, in the slightest, advance Pro's burden of proof: it doesn't establish criteria, justify criteria, nor apply those criteria to zits. Rather, it merely asserts a bogus statistic -- with no sources whatsoever, so it can obviously be discredited as nonsensical -- attacking people with happen to think zits are unnattractive, which, by the way, is practically everyone.

The subtle problem, though, is that Pro concedes that at least some people -- granted, the actual number of people who find zits unattractive is much, much higher than Pro suggests, but bear with me for a moment -- find zits unnattractive. By conceding this, he concedes that zits ar enot objectively cool. By doing that, he concedes the debate.


Conclusion

My opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof nor made any progress toward that end. Furthermore, he has effectively conceded the debate.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
fdsaBIG

Pro

nOPE... all atractive celebratese have zits
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

My opponent states that "all attractice celebrities have zits." However, attractiveness is fundamentally subjective, and he has not refuted nor contested this point. Moreover, neither my arguments nor my syllogisms have been addressed. My opponent, also, has failed to uphold his burden of proof.

To refute his point further: a lot of people -- myself included -- find Jennifer Anniston attractive. Jennifer Anniston doesn't have a zit. Therefore, Pro's contention is null.

Conclusion
All of my arguments have been dropped. He has not established the criteria by which to establish an objectivity conception of "cool." Therefore, he has not fulfilled his burden of proof.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
lol.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
This debate needs a comment.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: BOP is on Pro.
Vote Placed by kinsky 2 years ago
kinsky
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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: no arguments from pro
Vote Placed by LDPOFODebATeR0328 2 years ago
LDPOFODebATeR0328
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 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: I could tell that Pro didn't read any of Con's arguments...
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: pro had barely any arguments
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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: bop for pro was not upheld
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had terrible grammar and barely posted an argument.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never fulfilled his BoP, and was swamped by Con's counter-arguments, regardless. Sources to Con for being the only debater to provide any. S&G to Con because Pro's was atrocious, and it distracted from the arguments.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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: Pro didn't really provide argument and thus fails to fulfill BOP.