Instigator / Con
4
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2343
On net balance, calling your mother a Superhero is a compliment
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Speedrace
Parameters
- 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
Contender / Pro
7
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Description
Compliment: a polite expression of praise (express warm approval of) or admiration
superhero: fictional hero having extraordinary or superhuman powers
On net balance: considering both positives and negatives
Round 1
Calling your mother "superhero" is not praise, not a compliment. It sets an absurdly high impossible expectation out of them, and is unrealistic and negative in the end result. Consider all the popular superheroes we know and love: Superman, Spiderman, the Hulk, etc. They obtained their powers unwillingly, and gradually learned to use their powers for the better. But it is an unfair boost that your mother will never obtain (as super powers are fictional). You would arguably be praising your mother for something illusory (their "power") rather than their actual actions.
Consider this: if your mother tediously works all day from 9 to 5, and is incredibly tired, you would want to praise her hard work and her determination. By calling her "superhero", you arguably undermine her efforts. If you called Clark Kent "superhero", he would feel unnatural. Superman could easily lounge around and pretend to get some news report to fulfill his job. Bruce Banner, the scientist, would feel uncomfortable to be compared (referred) to his rage and strength, when his field involves science and research. Regardless of what makes your mom "super", calling them such would be illogical, as it is not their job. When you start bringing in this stereotype of always being strong, never giving up, and saving people, to a normal job, it is a comparison that is too far-fetched and absurd. Yes, your mother should be determined, but she likely appreciates a hug and your smile, more than she actually thinks of her job as flying around and saving people from danger.
Some mothers are just helpless, in the end. They are just doing what they can do to survive. And sometimes, merely surviving is good enough for people. Your resources and your physical ability are out of your control. Not everyone can be Iron Man and invest in a huge business empire. Not everyone can run at light speed like Flash. Indeed, would you deny the idea that, most times a simple "I love you", a very human expression, is enough for the mother? Clearly, "Superhero" is not a compliment.
When you call your mom a superhero, you are using figurative language. This can be deduced from the fact that one's mom cannot be a superhero, because, as defined by CON in the description, superheroes are fictional. Therefore, by calling your mom a superhero, you are using a metaphor to say that your mom does amazing things. By saying your mom does amazing things, you compliment her. Therefore, calling your mom a superhero is a compliment.
All of CON's arguments assume that one is speaking literally by calling one's mom a superhero. This is illogical because superheroes are fictional, as per CON's definition, and therefore one cannot literally say that one's mom is a superhero. Therefore, CON's arguments are based on a fallacious assumption and are false.
Round 2
despite being figurative, Superhero still contains a sense of overarching incredibility that is impossible for a normal mom to achieve. Consider that psychology today states: "The characters also become symbols in and of themselves, images that fans include in their clothing, tattoos, and homes in order to wear symbols of strength, power, and a bit of rebellion. The superhero images represent the hope that someone can and will stand up to do the right thing, and that the human being has the potential to amaze." This sets up the expectation that mother is always right, that the mother must always only show her child her good side. Because heroes cannot be defeated Even the symbolism is the idea that you are just and an unbeatable force. My argument still applies in the end. You would much rather a human expression just for being a mother and doing your average job, rather than expectation that you are incredible and you can't be defeated. Just how disappointing would it be, when the mother has reached her breaking point, as she is only human, and has to face her child who thought of her as "superhero"? Remember, a lot of children take things literally, and as such, round 1 still has a lot of value to consider. To the child, the mother is their wonder woman.
Case closed.
despite being figurative, Superhero still contains a sense of overarching incredibility that is impossible for a normal mom to achieve.
"to achieve" is the problem with CON's argument. He incorrectly assumes that the mother, after being called a superhero, must now achieve things she did not have to before. This is not true because it is not an order to be a superhero, but rather a confirmation that the mother already is a superhero (metaphorically). Therefore, the person calling her a superhero believes that the things she already does qualify her to be compared to a superhero, and there is therefore no extra commitment that the mother will feel.
Remember, a lot of children take things literally, and as such, round 1 still has a lot of value to consider.
Yes, but the mother is not a child, and therefore will not take it literally, and therefore will not feel any abnormal expectations. Whether or not the child takes it literally is irrelevant.
And, even if voters buy CON's argument that the mother feels unnecessary pressure as a result of being called a superhero, that does not undermine the fact that her being called a superhero was a compliment, and therefore PRO still wins.
CON's argument falls when we apply reductio ad absurdum. With his argument, all compliments are not compliments because they apply a pressure to always completely fulfill those compliments, such as "beautiful," "awesome," and "amazing." Surely CON is not saying that we should never use compliments!
Round 3
the problem is that pro is inferring you can call your mother whatever, and it won't be overbearing no matter how absurd it is, because of symbolism. Consider if I called a random woman a "goddess", this would be unnerving and very confusing, (looked upon as strange calling or maybe even sarcasm, rather than praise) as it is an insanely high valuation, despite the compliment "hey, you look pretty good" being far less severe, yet more acceptable. The entire point is that the Superhero level of awesomeness is too far and too much. What it symbolizes is shown in the past rounds is already shown. Your mother is usually not unusually strong, not absurdly fast, not "super", and there is no reason to go completely crazy and call her amazingly perfect just for doing her job well. There is a difference between hero and superhero. We all want to help our children feel satisfied. We don't want to break the illusion that we can take care of them. But there is a big contrast between your child accepting your weaknesses and knowing you are human, rather than the disillusion you will never accomplish, that you are somehow a SUPER hero.
Vote for con.
the problem is that pro is inferring you can call your mother whatever, and it won't be overbearing no matter how absurd it is, because of symbolism.
I fail to see how this is a problem. This is exactly right.
Consider if I called a random woman a "goddess", this would be unnerving and very confusing, (looked upon as strange calling or maybe even sarcasm, rather than praise) as it is an insanely high valuation, despite the compliment "hey, you look pretty good" being far less severe, yet more acceptable.
This is incorrect. It is common knowledge that calling a woman a "goddess" is a compliment, and there is no mainstream example of a woman being confused or unnerved by this. It might be seen as creepy in some situations, but it is still a compliment.
The entire point is that the Superhero level of awesomeness is too far and too much. What it symbolizes is shown in the past rounds is already shown. Your mother is usually not unusually strong, not absurdly fast, not "super", and there is no reason to go completely crazy and call her amazingly perfect just for doing her job well.
Again, calling someone a superhero does not symbolize these things, as established previously, because it is impossible to be those things. It is simply a compliment that tells one that they have done amazing things.
But there is a big contrast between your child accepting your weaknesses and knowing you are human, rather than the disillusion you will never accomplish, that you are somehow a SUPER hero.
Whether the child believes that the mom is a literal superhero or not is irrelevant. In both scenarios, it is still a compliment, and PRO wins.
Vote Pro.
I guess it could be an insult if she is an actual feminist, and calling her "super"MAN" is just sexist. I guess wonder woman is a better suit to mothers.
I have seen this one...
is your mom mad at you now?
I mean... depends on her preference I guess