Beautiful women should actively go after career rather 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 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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
"As a principle of parsimony, conversational implications are to be preferred over semantic context for linguistic explanations." - Grice's Razor.
CON's first kritik violated this razor. He argued: "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."
It was clear PRO meant women that are "on balance" considered beautiful by society at large.
CON gave another kritik: "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."
I will once again express my distaste for this kritik. The resolution isn't MEANT to be a factual statement, it's an OPINION. One that the debaters disagree on and will argue one way or the other. CON's approach strikes me as bastardly, and I'm docking conduct points for it.
On the other hand, PRO does give an argument as to why a woman's life would be better working than not, such as having more financial security.