Cosmetic Surgeries for enhancing body parts should be banned across the globe.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
No information
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.
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.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [fauxlaw] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
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 weold allow regulation, but not complete banning, which does smack of a "thought police" mentality, an argument Pro failed to defeat.
Sources: Pro demonstrated far more and better sourcing than Con
S&G: Clearly Con had better
Conduct: Con forfeited last round; ad form for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: Argument points are justified, but source and S&G points are not. The Voting Policy requires the following rules for each category:
Sources
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
S&G
Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
Sorry for removing the vote so close to the deadline.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: VonKlempter // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
I would first like to congratulate both debaters for their effort, but since I do not wish to write 20 pages for a vote RFD, I will keep it short and simple. Arguments wise, both sides did well, however, the Instigator has failed to provide sufficient and clear conclusions for his arguments. He seems to provide a newer substantive at the end, and while it definitely is not wrong, it does not provide his arguments with the clarity and simplicity that resounds through the Contender's arguments.
As for sources, the Instigator has bogged his arguments down with a maelstrom of sites, placing as many as three sources just for one simple sentence. This further adds to the mild confusion that Pro's arguments create.
S&G is self-explanatory, neither side has problems expressing themselves, at least from a reader's point of view.
Conduct to the Instigator because the Contender forfeited the last round.
>Reason for Mod Action: Unfortunately, the vote does not reach the minimum standards for awarding argument points. There are three criteria that must be met for argument points to be awarded. The voter must"
1. Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
2. Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
3. Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
No arguments are specifically mentioned, nor their counterarguments.
For source point allocations, the voter must, per Voting Policy guidelines,
"Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support."
Other point allocations meet the minimum standards. So sorry for removing the vote close to the deadline.
************************************************************************
Yeah. Will do. Sorry about being a bit late with this.
Would one of you mind reviewing the votes? They've both been reported.
any feedback about the debate would be highly appreciated. Do tell which arguments you found the best and which you found lacking in some areas.
agree with pro
This is an OG topic. Always has been a debate topic in school tournaments and will remain a pressing issue, no matter how the world progresses.