Instigator / Pro
7
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#1913

A real man not only eats quiche, he makes it

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Description

In the 80s, I think it was, when men were begining to be belittled in advertising, that the world was excessively masculine, and men were blamed for it, and then there was advertising for men's eyeliner and shadow and fou-fou hair shampoo, etc, there was a tv commercial, product not remembered, but probably one of the above, saying "Real men don't eat quiche." Well, since I have been making quiche since the late 60s when I was in France, and have made it perennially on Christmas morning for half a century, I was offended by the ad. I said to myself, I not only eat quiche, I make it!

No conditions and no definitions necessary. If you don't know what quiche is, look it up.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Ok. So, what is the topic? The debate centered around this sole question, and I don’t think I get a clear answer by the end. Here’s why: If I take the topic at face value and assume that there are two separate categories of men, real and not real, then I might favor Con since he points out the inherent breech of personal privileges that would accompany the passage of the resolution (although, as Pro mentions, his resolution would not force people to eat quiche per se). He points out that real men simply buy the quiche so as to demonstrate his sedulousness. Con calls this working smart, not hard. However, Con spends little ink in explaining why sedulousness is/should be a quality that “real” men possess. In fact, the semantic debate over what it means to be a “real man” might have been the chief misstep that both competitors made. If Con argued that “real men” exhibit certain qualities such as shrewdness or canny, then this argument might have clinched the debate. Instead, I am left wondering if it really matters that real men could conceivably buy the quiche as opposed to eating it. Pro raises some doubt when he posits that “real men making quiche” does not preclude the use of pre-bought materials.
Pro suggests that this argument is outside the scope of the debate, which is meant to be a lighthearted challenge meant to engender amusement. Here’s the issue. Bearing in mind the mirthful satire with which this topic was conceived, I still find that this argument has merit because it relates to the topic, which is more than I can say for most of Pro’s arguments. In fact, the reason I went over Con’s arguments first is for this very reason. I hazard to traverse a landscape of non-sequiturs. That said, the “robust” history of the quiche is duly noted, which I suppose supports the topic at hand tangentially. Clearly, men are endowed (heh) with certain masculine qualities that are etched into the very history of quiche and quiche-making. Again, it doesn’t meet the definition of “real man” though. Sans any impact analysis (i.e. it is more important for a real man to exhibit prudence v. it is more important for men to demonstrate a love for the robust past of the German, Swiss, and French pastry,) I can’t really decide off the arguments presented alone.
Pro offers another argument related to the golden ratio that seems to be… well…

“1. A Fabricator God has his signature in creation by virtue of the golden ratio.
2. The making of quiche exhibits the use of the golden ratio.
3. Therefore, when the Fabricating God makes quiche, He is a real man.”

I’m a tad befuddled to say the least. While I buy that the golden ratio exists, and might be a product of the Fabricator God, how does this pertain to “real men?” This isn’t exactly sterling logic, but it is a debate meant to elicit a laugh, which I guess worked. However, who is to say that a quiche needs to follow the ratio? Couldn’t different recipes follow a separate ratio? These arguments are never made by Con, so I’m counting this argument as cogent regardless. In fact, Con drops this argument in its entirety.
Con has one other argument that must be discussed: personal rights. Nothing in the resolution compels someone to eat quiche. While Pro is erecting an arbitrary distinction between real and unreal men based off quiche creation and consumption, he never browbeats anyone. Con claims abusiveness, and I suppose the resolution could have been clearer, but this is a case that needed to have been made earlier in the round with substantial warrant.

This is an occasion in which I changed who I deem the victor in the middle of my RFD. Con drops too much of Pro’s arguments and places too much stock into an argument about personal rights that has little impact. Good debate! You folks are funny.