It is preferable for a beautiful woman to go after a career than going after a man
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
beautiful: having beauty; possessing qualities that give great pleasure or satisfaction to see, hear, think about, etc.; delighting the senses or mind: (in this case, physical beauty)
"go after": to exert effort to achieve (gain a job, or gain a partner in life)
career: an occupation/profession undertaken for a significant period of a person's life and with opportunities for progress.
Preferable: Would be more beneficial than negatives, both sides considered.
Assume the woman is heterosexual. Con cannot win by saying "neither way is good", it is either one or the other.
- Health Care Insurance
- Disability Insurance
- Life Insurance
- Retirement / Pension Plans
- Flexible Compensation
- Paid Leave
Unless Con can prove the man would be willing to give this much, then con loses.
If you chase after a man, you'll have to pressure him to pay for your meals, and even then you'll exhaust time and effort on an uncertain result. Indeed, how can you justify something with an incredibly ambiguous and future gain?
Vote for pro.
"There are 56.8 million unmarried women in the U.S. They account for 26 percent of the overall population.". So clearly not every woman wants to be desired, or is beautiful.
Regardless, "every woman is beautiful" is absurd.
Besides, if every woman depended on her man to find the job, all jobs that require women would be in desperate need.
Millions of women have become part of the essential workforce. "All women seek career" is just as bad as an extreme as "all women only chase after men".
Next, Con's source contradicts his claim as it says... "Reporting better general health increases the likelihood of higher life satisfaction more than any other factor". This is why my health insurance benefit comes into play and arguably outweighs con's idea.
Next up, Con's same source also says-- Retirees are most satisfied with their life. Well... you need employment FIRST to become a retiree.
Third con's same source is saying "Average life satisfaction is higher for those spending more".
Con has NOT negated the inspiring power of women,
Con even concedes that the woman may still yet want a career even after a man
"leading by example is the best way to truly show girls what they can achieve", the blog states. Indeed, should we inspire women to merely be the man's most entertaining, beautiful, charming partner? Or should we make women into the proper workforce, to contribute to society, one way or another?
con assumes that just because you are married means you are beautiful,
there are obviously other reasons to marry, such as emotional compatible, finance stability, so on and so forth. Becomingminimalist notes 8 ways marriage can be successful, and beauty is not one of them.
Men chase after women has been modern standard already, and as such not having the other way around wouldn't make the world go extinct.
If con is so set on women becoming men's playthings
how would it be any different from becoming a prostitute, a career that's arguably equivalent to con's frivolous argument that argues being mans' object is better than being your own independent woman?
Con still has the slippery slope completely dependent on the idea if no woman chases after men, our species will go instinct. But I think I've negated that pretty thoroughly.
Beautiful woman will always have people hitting on her and complimenting her. There is no pressure to actively go after men. While a career is very unlikely to land in your lap.