The Instigator
anc2006
Con (against)
The Contender
jnk
Pro (for)

Buying designer clothes

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
jnk has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2019 Category: Fashion
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 146 times Debate No: 123566
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

anc2006

Con

We don't need specific designers to give us a sheet of silk to protect against the climate.
jnk

Pro

Your question and/or argument is perilously vague, So I'll clarify the criteria by which this debate must adhere. You, The negation, Will advocate that designer clothing does more harm than good. I argue that designer clothing and the production of said goods does more good than harm.

To preface, This is my first debate and, As such, I am unaware of what structure my argument should entail. But for the time being, My procedure is as follows: I will begin by establishing a claim, Then a warrant, And finally a scale of impacts for both the Pro and the Con.

To define: the luxury/designer/fashion industry is a conglomeration of designer brands like Gucci, Valentino, And Prada. Designer brands and the like are becoming more stable and seemingly more sustainable with every year that passes. Like the tech industry, The fashion industry sees constant growth because it is one of the few sectors in which companies can adapt and adjust to currency. Only in the 21st century has the world needed to appeal to such rapid change in the consumers' appeal; the luxury industry has done a commendable job of acclimating. In 2018, The luxury industry reported the aggregate net sale of luxury products totaling to 217 billion USD at a composite 8. 8% profit markup per Deloitte. By contrast, "the global luxury market has bounced back from economic uncertainty and geopolitical crises, Edging closer to annual sales of US $1 trillion at the end of 2017. " The luxury industry has embraced a series of green programs aimed to excise the environmental detriments commonly associated with the manufacturing of commercial garments. As a result, The issue of environmental preservation is much less pertinent than it had been in, Say, The early 90s.

I rushed to write this before math class, So forgive me for being messy. I am thoroughly interested in reading your response.

https://www2. Deloitte. Com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Consumer-Business/cb-global-powers-luxury-goods-2018. Pdf
Debate Round No. 1
anc2006

Con

Pretty worthy for a first debate, To be honest. You are much more worthier than I'd thought.

But nice time over, Your argument is based on real economy only, So in your logic, It earns money, It is useful, Right? In other ways I could justify tobacco selling by stating how many smokers there are in the US and how much it earns, According to your not-really-complete logic, But really I can't. There are many factors to this thing, And there are more than just earning money. If the corporation is brainwashing us with bad stuff with real earnings and real users being massive in amount, That doesn't mean it turns good automatically.

What are clothes for? Its initial and most relevant purpose is to protect you from hazards. Wearing a heavy coat going up the mount Everest is better than having none. But fashion(the thing my plebeian friend like, But not me) is kind of useless on a literally piece of silk used to protect you.

Yeah. Water and food is vital for you, Right? Now water is encased in 24k gold and the food is diamond truffle, Would you still buy it? Most likely no. These things are just too much money on a vital requirement of living.

being luxury is technically not good here. With these experimental piece used by a "designer" and these threads and ornaments on the clothes would be enough to give a considerable amount of people at least a cool T shirt to wear. But no. Of course, As well lengthen the rich-and-poor gap! Make the rich look spoiled, And make the poor naked by making luxury fashion popular! Money is useful and it inflates proportionally. There are always the richest few percents to afford it, And no one else.

What is wrong with my logic? Tell me. So far luxury fashion is only proven bad instead of good, And the "economically good" barely proves anything so far. Good to see how the debate would go.
jnk

Pro

In response to the several fallacies present in your response, I will refer back to my original criteria for the debate: you, The negation, Will advocate that designer clothing does more harm than good. I argue that designer clothing and the production of said goods does more good than harm.

"What are clothes for? Its initial and most relevant purpose is to protect you from hazards. Wearing a heavy coat going up the mount Everest is better than having none. But fashion(the thing my plebeian friend like, But not me) is kind of useless on a literally piece of silk used to protect you. "

--> While this argument may have held weight in 230 B. C. , We live in the 21st century. It's simply sacrilegious to consider the purpose of clothing -- we aren't neanderthals. If you want to make that argument, The world should have adopted a single uniform, Devoid of color and other "auxiliary" properties. In effect, You are making the argument that, Because clothing only serves as a protective measure, There should be no market competition. In what capacity would this argument make sense? You're absolutely overlooking the fact that we live in a highly consumerist society, One that encourages sole-proprietism and the pursuit of common wealth. As a result, The disparity between high-end and low-end clothing exists. If you want to overlook the time element, I could easily refute your argument by explaining to you that the terms "first-world" and "third-world" only exist because of the imbalance of capital incomes between, Say, Rwanda and Luxembourg. You cannot expect both the wealthy AND the impoverished to adopt an equally utilitarian mindset if the rich are in a position to spend more on luxury.

"Yeah. Water and food is vital for you, Right? Now water is encased in 24k gold and the food is diamond truffle, Would you still buy it? Most likely no. These things are just too much money on a vital requirement of living. "

I don't know whether you've considered the fact that much of the Earth is unlike what you see in The Hunger Games or The Giver. Out of respect to your position, And perhaps lack of awareness of the global condition, I will tell you this: there are many, Many, MANY people who have the capacity to spend more than EXACTLY how much is required for survival. Luxury companies are not marketed for countries like Afghanistan and Haiti -- they specifically target the upper-class and have done so since their inception. The humanitarian-need argument is futile and, Frankly, Irrelevant in this particular debate.

"Make the rich look spoiled, And make the poor naked by making luxury fashion popular! "

Again, I cannot stress this enough. Your arguments are predicated on the notion that we live in a cave-man society. In Ancient Rome, Togas made of rudimentary fabric were worn for protection, As you said. In many tribal regions of Africa, A small piece of cloth is used to shield the nether area for the sake of protection. But when you talk about luxury clothing, You cannot argue that the poor are unable to clothe themselves due to the sheer existence of designer brands. There are too many bodies in the world for every single one of them to be adorned in Louis Vuitton.

And, So as it stands, My argument in favor of the economic benefits associated with the luxury good industry remains. I would much rather you provide your own argumentation, Rather than making the feeble attempt to poke at my own.
Debate Round No. 2
anc2006

Con

As who I know your debating style immediately, You are too bipolar and extreme in these arguments. So, It is either modern nature or cavemen society? Nah, There are something in between. And plus, When I said clothes are most important for protection, I mean its primary use is protection, Not that fashion should be damned.

"While this argument may have held weight in 230 B. C. , We live in the 21st century. It's simply sacrilegious to consider the purpose of clothing -- we aren't neanderthals. "

I mean you got a point, But the main use of clothing is still protection. Give me at least 2 reason that that isn't the case, Or close the case wholetogether. The main use of clothing is protection, Just like the main use of a toothbrush is not to light firelamps with.
We aren't neanderthals. Yes, But that doesn't change the fact luxury fashion doesn't really do much, Consider a bulletproof vest does better than EVERY designer clothes without a doubt in reality. In practicality the money I'd use to buy a 5000$ gucci would technically donate to about 10 foster homes, But nope, Just gonna waste those 4900$ to buy a luxury gem dress consider I can buy something within the same practicality as cheap as 100$, Compared.
So there is nothing wrong for fashion, Technically, But to buy something for 5000$ for the actual quality of $100 isn't worth it. There are better clothes you can purchase for $150 in practicality, But nope, The rich just ignores the practicality factor knowing they had come a long way from being poor and should know how to make deals.
And especially what? Suppose your clothes cost $3000 apiece, Then you still don't need to pay them. Just learn art for about $10, 000(the quality would be enough to make DECENT CLOTHES), And of course you will at least use your job for more than 4 times for yourself(less than 4, It is bad for you, But if you make more than 10 in your studio, That would save you the worth of $30, 000, With about 20k profit consider other overconfident people are having a loss of $3000 when they bought it. So buy 10 clothes = -30k; learn art for 10k and make 10 clothes for yourself = -15k(assume your art supplies are costly) and within are 15k saved, With looks good enough to be published, And you can wear it with fashion and style.
And the only reason luxury fashion has market is people don't learn, Making them bad for the development of the society.
Hoo, That is a lot to type. Move on.

"MANY people who have the capacity to spend more than EXACTLY how much is required for survival. "

I do know that a reliable coat is better than a soaked rag wrapped around your genitals. But luxury fashion is still not that useful consider its reliability is as the level as one costed $50. I do know pizzas are better than moldy bread, But pizzas with gold truffles doesn't necessarily tastes better or is healthier than your normal $5. 99 Dominos pizza.
So if you can buy the $5 one, Don't buy the $100 one with the same reliability and durability. Practicality is always the first priority of a thing consider it may either enhance your life or ruin it, And fashion comes second far away. I'd choose a coat than a $5000 jacket consider it doesn't worth it. The companies just want pure profit, And the designs can be designed by ANY clothe designer without it being that expensive. Again, Do you want a jacket with glitters put on it costing $3000? If you do, Who's going to identify that that cost thousands in individual without checking the shopping site?

Argument end.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.