Instigator / Pro
5
1489
rating
19
debates
42.11%
won
Topic
#2026

Cosmetic Surgeries for enhancing body parts should be banned across the globe.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
1
2
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

CaptainSceptic
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
13
1527
rating
8
debates
62.5%
won
Description

No information

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:

Interpreting the resolution:
I must quote con here, as the resolution implies… “This debate is about Cosmetic Surgeries for enhancing body parts that should be banned. This is not a debate about eugenics or gender selection.”

1. Desperation
People try it themselves, or use unlicensed practitioners, and sometimes die. A risky point was “…cosmetic surgeries should be reserved to the people who actually need it.”
Con counters that making it illegal would not prevent the illegal trade. Implicitly, it would seem to encourage getting desired surgeries done by the wrong people.
Pro argues this is mere speculation without sources, and says that non-cosmetic elective procedures do have changed rates (bit of an apples to oranges example, even while being a powerful pathos appeal).
Con catches that abortion is a different topic, and calls the comparison “preposterous.” And further flips things back by pointing out the demand is unaffected by driving it underground. He flips pro’s own abortion point, to prove that bans do not stop practices, but decrease the safety of regulation.

2. Psychological
Apparently 15% of people seeking cosmetic surgery have body dysmorphic disorder, with half of those gaining no improvement from the surgeries; and pro links that to suicide.
Pro adds on underage patients, and further stresses that 15%.
Con joins this with citing half of the underage surgeries being otoplasty, and ties the teen suicide rate to bullying; and hits home with dental work to improve lives of children.

3. Thought police
Con builds a case around freedom of speech, citing harmless self-expression surgeries such as tattoos and ear piercings. Better yet, the simple act of getting braces.
Pro’s response to this does not actually address it, merely an insistence that the government has the power to do that if it wants.
There is some back and forth for if tattoos and such count as surgery, to which con upholds that they fall under the same umbrella as cosmetic surgeries due to similarity in risks (similarity in intent I take to be a given), and specifically cites medical tattooing.
Pro counters with an appeal to authority of the years of education for the plastic surgeons.

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points.
There was an immediate moving of the goalposts to government control as opposed to banning. He even ends with “and regulating such procedure does not solve the entire problem but it surely takes a step in the positive direction” note the word regulating, which is not what the resolution he selected calls for (the description could have expanded it to that, but it did not).
As is, basic freedoms are a home run, particularly not having to get approval for teeth correction from Big Brother.
That said, I still recognize the quality and effort pro put in. It just drifted a little off topic, making a lot of it half way to a concession for regulation (which already exists in probably every country with one of those medical studies) instead of bans.

Sources:
I was outright confused when pro used the abortion example as counter evidence, as said source he insists con disagreed with was not offered in R1. I do like that pro sources a lot, but there gets to be a point where it feels like source spam, thus losing the desired benefit. Con on the other hand used just a few effective sources, which held things within the middle of effectiveness (had he used none, I would give this to pro). I must also credit pro on criticizing con’s sources, I wish I saw this more often (still, Gish Galloping sources hurt the effectiveness of whichever good ones there were).

Conduct:
Neither side distracted me (pretty much what I look at, if rudeness to each other gets bad enough to pull me out from reading the cases), but con loses this for the missed round.

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:

Argument: Pro's argument that all cosmetic surgery should be banned is far to extensive to be common sense considering the vast number of surgeries performed for well-being of the patient and their wide variation. Pro argues for a moderate approach, but demonstrates "moderate" as absolute. Con's argument would allow regulation, but not complete banning, which does smack of a "thought police" mentality, an argument Pro failed to defeat. Pro's argument that by individual choice to self-operate to address a cosmetic condition as justifying banning all competently-trained practitioners is absurd.

Sources: Pro's source #5 in round 1 appears to suggest Pro's argument that cosmetic surgery ought to be banned, however, the article concludes with the country's [Dominican Republic] response to bad surgeries was not banning the practice, but regulating it; a Con argument. Another example of cross-purpose sourcing by Pro is source #10, round 1, a physician's blog, extolling the dangers of the Brazilian Butt-Lift. But the physician's recommendation was not banning the procedure, but assuring proper regulations governing the procedure. Again, a Con argument. Con's sources are consistent with his arguments. Point to Con

S&G: Clearly Con had better. Pro 1st round: "Phaloplasty" should be phalloplasty. "Practises" s/b practices. "Legimate" s/b legitimate. "Benifit" s/b benefit. "Indicidual" s/b individual. Also, many instances of word,word [no space after comma] such as "people,even" "cases,thus" "Miami,USA" Pro 2nd round [after warning from Con] "Foetus" s/b fetus, and several more instances of "counseling,thus and "surgery.The"

Conduct: Pro's 1st round sarcasm was bad form. "...surgery has been opted again and again for non- necessary and sometimes life threatening practises such as:
Breast augmentation, [etc]

Con's forfeit of round 4 was bad form. Tie.