"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.
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.
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.
He doesn't really explain why he gives sources to con. IMO a good vote should be one that actually gives feedback to both debaters. I don't think you need to type out a 5 paragraph essay, but simply saying "sources to con" is not enough.
If the resolution was Capitalism is exploitative, unsustainable, and unscientific, then pro would probably have won the debate. However, the resolution is whether or not Capitalism is **obsolete,** a point that con argues well. Con shows that capitalism is still in use and thus is not obsolete. The definition of obsolete, as con defined:
"Not in use any more, having been replaced by something newer and better or more fashionable."
The general rule in debating is that you should define all your terms prior to the start of the debate. This is the mistake pro made in this debate (and in the other debates I've seen from him).
Pro forfeited the last round so conduct to con and this means pro essentially dropped all of con's arguments.
Ah didn’t know that. In reality I think the instigator should always be “pro.” Though perhaps he should have worded it in a negative form, but that too wouldn’t make too much sense. Anyway I think I’ll take this debate
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.
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.
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.
=== 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.
Check your DMs please
If you want to change your vote or nullify it, ask the admin on the site. Thanks for the vote and the feedback
Yeah if I had more time I’d probably be able to put together a better case.
Got it. Thanks for your feedback
I was arguing for the resolution just to be clear. Not sure if you realizes that or not. I was just a bit confused by the RCD
Brief note: the last quote was from this source
https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/01/the-feminist-case-for-universal-basic-income.html
I can’t believe I forgot to put it in the sources. Oh well.
Did you even read the debate? I conceded as I didn’t have time. @Admin please remove JC’s vote.
Thanks. I should have my arguments up later tonight or tomorrow
Earth’s vote is perfectly fine. RM is so arrogant he can’t stanf the thought of him losin a debate.
Fair enough. @Batman - please explain your vote
For now, my counter vote stays.
He doesn't really explain why he gives sources to con. IMO a good vote should be one that actually gives feedback to both debaters. I don't think you need to type out a 5 paragraph essay, but simply saying "sources to con" is not enough.
Any chance you can remove the_bat_man's vote and my vote so I can vote properly?
Thanks!
Accepted. Can you wait till Sunday to waive the first round?
I agree with you so I won’t accept. But gl
Mind if I take this debate?
Can't wait for this debate!
Ok awesome. Challenge me to the debate.
Shit! I was almost finished my arguments. Fuck phone posting! @Budda - Mind if we tie and restart?
Glad you got it in on time! It would be a shame to forfeit the last round in an excellent debate.
Think we should just make this a normal debate where pro waived the first round and I’ll waive the last round to make the rounds even?
Ok is there a rule on who goes first or maximum number of questions? I’m pretty sure negative goes first
Is this when we do cross examination?
Other cases of interest:
Roe v. Wade
obergefell vs hodges
I'm in favor of both cases. Also I'd be interested in debating repeal of the second amendment
Sure! I love constitutional law and legal debates. Perhaps we could do one on Cotizens United?
This is one of my favorite debates of all time. Thank you for debating this with me! I've learned quite a lot from this debate!
If you want to make this just a regular debate where I went first and I’ll waive the last round I’ll be fine with that
RFD for arguments
If the resolution was Capitalism is exploitative, unsustainable, and unscientific, then pro would probably have won the debate. However, the resolution is whether or not Capitalism is **obsolete,** a point that con argues well. Con shows that capitalism is still in use and thus is not obsolete. The definition of obsolete, as con defined:
"Not in use any more, having been replaced by something newer and better or more fashionable."
The general rule in debating is that you should define all your terms prior to the start of the debate. This is the mistake pro made in this debate (and in the other debates I've seen from him).
Pro forfeited the last round so conduct to con and this means pro essentially dropped all of con's arguments.
Sounds good! I never really done CX before
Looks good to me
Thank you! Check out our other debate
Ah didn’t know that. In reality I think the instigator should always be “pro.” Though perhaps he should have worded it in a negative form, but that too wouldn’t make too much sense. Anyway I think I’ll take this debate
If you’re against the resolution, then you should be con. I’ll challenge you to this topic as pro
I’m confused
This is intended to be an LD debate. I will be arguing the Negative.
Are you arguing that the US should or should not require background checks? If you’re arguing against, I’ll take this debate.
Thank you!
Define what "lyrically advanced" means and what criteria is used to find which genre has more lyrical advancement.
Hey since con was banned challenge me to this debate
This is an excellent debate so far. PM me when this is over so I can vote.