Instigator / Pro
7
1473
rating
102
debates
31.37%
won
Topic

Beautiful women should actively go after career rather than going after a man

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
0

With 1 vote and 4 points ahead, the winner is ...

seldiora
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Con
3
1490
rating
5
debates
40.0%
won
Description
~ 187 / 5,000

I’m not convinced with speedraces argument. Let’s try this again. Assume this is a heterosexual woman.

Actively go after: put effort into achieving

“Beautiful” concerns physical beauty

Round 1
Pro
I will paste my arguments from last time as my previous opponent did not really counter them head on. 

A career is more successful nowadays. Women are already more than half the work force. It's perfectly normal for the women to go after a successful career. On the other hand, most times women don't seem convinced by a marriage -- if they can even get one. This site shows mostly women are the ones that try to go for a divorce. As you can see men are very disappointing to try going after. Indeed, even Wisestep is able to list 35 reasons why women should go after their career. To avoid Gish Gallop, I will only list the strongest ones:
1) earning of money. Now, I will admit that there is somewhat of a wage gap problem, however, a rigorous study notes that a lot of people fail to explain the precise reasoning why women are actually paid less (other factors are at large), and especially since this woman is attractive, it seems less likely that the boss will dislike this person who is willing to go after a career rather than a man.
2) Benefits provided by company: Most companies give you a lot of insurance that would otherwise be tough to pay for. One employee benefit site lists, among many other programs: 
Unless Con can prove the man would be willing to give this much, then con loses. Consider that, the prompt is woman chasing after man, so this would take a very long time. An article says it would take 134 days for the average woman to say the key three words. Let's just cut it down by half, since she's beautiful, eh? Even then, even with the average wage of $45,000 per year, 65 days is still around 2 months. 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? If the beautiful woman does not go after a career, that means the man would have to pay for them both eventually, raising standards and making it incredibly difficult to find the correct partner.

Also, I will say that Con must prove that the woman must make the effort for the man. In modern society we see men going after women all the time. Therefore it would be very easy if she wanted a partner, and hence she would not need to go after the man, the man would come to her, especially if she is beautiful. If con thinks women not going after men will result in extinction, that is absurd. He would need to prove that men do not chase after women in this alternate world.

conclusion: Employment offers very fast benefit and can encourage the woman to build her social network, improving her self esteem in her skills and her independence. Chasing after a man is risky and takes a long time. Her beauty also makes it more likely she is going to get shallow relationships and one night stands rather than a true relation. Beautiful women should chase after career, not after men.



Con
Pro's proposition is "Beautiful women should actively go after career rather than going after a man". The first word of this proposition is "beautiful" which is used to describe a certain type of "women"  (by which he means female homo sapiens). Unless Pro can prove the existence of objective beauty he falls short of his BoP because the thing he is arguing "should" do something can't even be proven to exist.

Pro is claiming that Beautiful women "should" do something. Can pro provide proof that there can be an objective "should" claim, or that such a claim can be proven? If not, he falls short of his BoP.

Pro claims "Beautiful women should actively go after career rather than going after a man". Unless pro can prove the two are mutually exclusive, he fails to meet his BoP.

All BoP is on pro because he is the one making all assertions in this debate. Con is merely here to disagree with him.

Round 2
Pro
certainly. Wired has agreed that beauty exists. (https://www.wired.com/2011/07/why-does-beauty-exist/) If society can consider some women beautiful, why aren't they beautiful? (https://www.esquire.com/uk/women/news/g9904/the-25-most-beautiful-women-of-all-time/) If I can consider a woman beautiful, it is up to con to now disprove that this woman is beautiful. Here, I will claim that Angelina Jolie is beautiful because I find her beautiful. Mission accomplished. Because some women are married in this world, it is then self-evident that most certainly, the men they marry to will consider them "beautiful", because why else would they do it? 

The title proposes one or the other. This is due to exerting effort which requires time and ... well... effort. Because if I take effort to do one thing, and the human mind is horrible at multitasking (backed by research), that means it's a bit exclusive and I need to decide which one to prioritize. If the debate was, should I take a walk, or should I sit down, it is clear that the two require different level of physical exertion and effort depending on my current physical state, and are mutually exclusive. I hope that makes sense to con.
Con
certainly. Wired has agreed that beauty exists.
The article you linked in no way proves that beauty is objective. It speaks of a study which shows that people can have an intersubjective sense of beauty and then goes on to describe a theory of "why beauty exists" the author of which admitted was "extremely speculative". The theory in question isn't even an argument for objective beauty, but instead seeks to explain why the ability to perceive beauty evolved.


If society can consider some women beautiful, why aren't they beautiful?
If society can consider the earth flat, why isn't the earth flat?

If I can consider a woman beautiful, it is up to con to now disprove that this woman is beautiful
If Con can consider Pro to be a three headed hamster with a poofy little rabbit tail it is up to Pro to disprove that he is a three headed hamster with a poofy little rabbit tail.

The title proposes one or the other. This is due to exerting effort which requires time and ... well... effort. Because if I take effort to do one thing, and the human mind is horrible at multitasking (backed by research), that means it's a bit exclusive and I need to decide which one to prioritize. 
 You can simply make time for both instead of choosing one or the other or doing them simultaneously. It's a false dichotomy. It's not like if you are going to do both you have to scroll through tinder while at work and then spend your dates doing business calls. It's up to the individual's time management skills and the nature of their career etc. if they will have time for both, there is no universal rule that says the two must infringe upon each other because everyone's situation or skillset is not going to be the same.

 If the debate was, should I take a walk, or should I sit down, it is clear that the two require different level of physical exertion and effort depending on my current physical state, and are mutually exclusive.
That was a totally irrelevant and inaccurate analogy.



Pro's proposition is "Beautiful women should actively go after career rather than going after a man". The first word of this proposition is "beautiful" which is used to describe a certain type of "women"  (by which he means female homo sapiens). Unless Pro can prove the existence of objective beauty he falls short of his BoP because the thing he is arguing "should" do something can't even be proven to exist.
Pro has failed to prove that beauty is objective.

Pro is claiming that Beautiful women "should" do something. Can pro provide proof that there can be an objective "should" claim, or that such a claim can be proven? If not, he falls short of his BoP.
Pro has failed to prove that there are objective "shoulds".

Pro claims "Beautiful women should actively go after career rather than going after a man". Unless pro can prove the two are mutually exclusive, he fails to meet his BoP.
Pro has failed to prove the two are mutually exclusive

All BoP is on pro because he is the one making all assertions in this debate. Con is merely here to disagree with him.

Round 3
Pro
Beauty does not need to be objective. The fact that it is subjective means that "beautiful woman" can exist. Even if beauty did not exist, this could still be a theoretical idea that con has not negated, that beautiful woman should go after career rather than men, if they existed. There is no need for objective "should", as we can weigh the benefits and negatives to see which idea is more preferable. And finally, I already said people are bad at multitasking, therefore putting effort into both at the same time is contradictory. Case closed. Vote for pro.
Con
 The fact that it is subjective means that "beautiful woman" can exist.
If beauty is subjective, then the women are perceived as beautiful rather than the women themselves being beautiful, therefore beautiful women do not exist.

 this could still be a theoretical idea that con has not negated, that beautiful woman should go after career rather than men, if they existed.
Even if we approach this debate hypothetically, you are still setting up a false dichotomy by claiming that every beautiful woman that exists can only have time for one or the other or else they will be forced to do both at the same time instead of making separate times for both. "Multitasking" means to do multiple things at once, an example of which is brushing your teeth while taking a shower. Pro is saying that you must either brush your teeth or take a shower but can't do both because doing one at a separate time from when you are doing the other is apparently impossible. Since everyone reading this debate likely understands the concept of brushing your teeth and taking a shower at two different times his conclusion that "multitasking bad = people can only do one thing" is highly flawed.