Instigator / Pro
4
1487
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#92

Abercrombie and Fitch's ban on shirtless models is unacceptable.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

In 2015, retail company Abercrombie & Fitch decided to move away from sexual marketing by banning shirtless models and reform itself to fully-clothed, down-to-earth marketing. However, it took a deep toll when its shares, sales, and popularity decline over it. Is the company doing the right thing, or is the company made a huge mistake?

-->
@Type1

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Type1 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 5 points for arguments and sources

>Reason for Decision: "Unacceptable" was the wrong choice of words for this debate, if pro had instead framed the debate around whether banning topless models was bad for business or not he would have had a much better chance. Since "unacceptable" is a completely subjective word pro pretty much has no chance to win (since you cannot actually prove an entirely opinion based narrative) unless con failed so hard it was laughable, which he didn't.

>Reason for Mod Action: For arguments, there was no analysis of specific arguments made in the debate, and no weighing analysis was conducted. There was no reasoning given whatsoever for the sources points.
************************************************************************

-->
@David

I will give a simple answer to the question: YES, Abercrombie & Fitch has lost its touch, glamor, and identity and it is high time for them to regret that mistake. Now, I will give RationalMadman one chance to answer it with a YES or NO.

-->
@RationalMadman
@JCEurovision96

JC - you have the full BOP in this debate.

"Unless the ban on shirtless models is lifted, has the company lost its touch, its glamour, and its identity completely and is it time for them to regret that draconian mistake, YES or NO?"

In all honesty, this is a question that YOU must answer and connect your answer to the resolution. The debate is about the ethics/morality of their choice. Losing touch, glamor, and identity doesn't have much to do with the resolution IMO.

-->
@RationalMadman
@JCEurovision96

Unfortunately I can't judge a debate by only one question. "He will in if and only if he answers my question..." is not a valid way to judge a debate.

-->
@RationalMadman

I'm afraid to tell you that you clearly dodged a yes-or-no question. You showed your true colors, you're nothing but a coward.

-->
@David

I am trying to give counterclaims against the Opposition's argument, but I said that he will win IF AND ONLY IF he answers my question, but he clearly dodged on that, so I think he's a coward in giving an answer. I tried to give RationalMadman a chance to answer, but he refused. He showed his true colors after his R4 argument.

-->
@RationalMadman

I agree, but I kinda felt that his argument didn't even hold water as it was irrelevant to the debate itself so I was focusing more on other things in the RFD. Great job.

-->
@David

Thanks for that virtuous RFD but I believe I also heavily mitigated how the decision itself was the reason for the decline on top of that. Thanks for the vote regardless.

-->
@RationalMadman
@JCEurovision96

=== FULL RFD==

The resolution here is "Abercrombie and Fitch's ban on shirtless models is unacceptable." The resolution here implies an ethical/moral issue. Is Abercombie's decision *ethical* or was it *immoral* for them to do this. Con points this out in round 1. Since the BOP wasn't defined, I view Pro having the entire BOP here to show that it was immoral.

Immediately in round 1 we run into trouble. Pro shows the sales decline in the company, but fails to show that their decision had anything to do with it. For his argument to be even remotely effective, he needed to prove that sales would have been higher, or at least the same, as they were if they did not make this choice.

Con's case I think is quite good. Con shows that the way things are advertised have a way of us looking at ourselves.

Pro's case doesn't get much better in round 2. Pro continues to argue that their decision was a result of their sales decline. Pro's comment: "So, the Opposition used the basis of morality in maintaining that ban. From what I can tell, that is immaturity" could warrant a conduct point going to con.