Instigator / Pro
seldiora's avatar
4
seldiora
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2362

It is preferable for a beautiful woman to go after a career than going after a man

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...

Speedrace
Tags
People
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 / Con
Speedrace's avatar
7
Speedrace
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Description

beautiful: having beauty; possessing qualities that give great pleasure or satisfaction to see, hear, think about, etc.; delighting the senses or mind: (in this case, physical beauty)

"go after": to exert effort to achieve (gain a job, or gain a partner in life)

career: an occupation/profession undertaken for a significant period of a person's life and with opportunities for progress.

Preferable: Would be more beneficial than negatives, both sides considered.

Assume the woman is heterosexual. Con cannot win by saying "neither way is good", it is either one or the other.

Round 1
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
Pro
#1
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.

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.
Speedrace's avatar
Speedrace
Con
#2
Firstly, we must decide who qualifies as beautiful. With the diversity of tastes and opinions in the world today, it is fairly safe to say that for every woman in the world, there is a person who finds the former beautiful. Therefore, all women are beautiful in some capacity. If all women are beautiful, and chase a career instead of a man, then pregnancy rates will severely plummet. This will lead to a severe population drop and the eventual extinction of the human race. Therefore, beautiful women should chase men and not careers. If PRO disagrees, then he must define who qualifies as beautiful.

But even if the voter does not buy CON's definition, CON still wins. According to a study [1], people who are married or in a partnership reported being happier than every other person in any other marital status category. This means a woman would not be as happy if she was single and in a career. Besides this, a woman could marry and still get a job (just not a career, as per the description), and thus would still be able to make money and possibly get some benefits. This is clearly the better option because the woman can be happy and be independent.

Unless Con can prove the man would be willing to give this much, then con loses.
Many companies provide those benefits for employees' spouses, so they would be able to.

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?
The gain is a much happier life.

Sources:
Round 2
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
Pro
#3
Firstly con is making a jump that makes no sense. Statistics say "There are 56.8 million unmarried women in the U.S. They account for 26 percent of the overall population.". So clearly not every woman wants to be desired, or is beautiful. Or maybe even both. Regardless, "every woman is beautiful" is absurd. Besides, if every woman depended on her man to find the job, all jobs that require women would be in desperate need. Millions of women have become part of the essential workforce. "All women seek career" is just as bad as an extreme as "all women only chase after men". Next, Con's source contradicts his claim as it says... "Reporting better general health increases the likelihood of higher life satisfaction more than any other factor". This is why my health insurance benefit comes into play and arguably outweighs con's idea. Next up, Con's same source also says--  Retirees are most satisfied with their life. Well... you need employment FIRST to become a retiree. So now his own source is biting him in the butt twice. Thirdly, con's same source is saying "Average life satisfaction is higher for those spending more". I wonder. Who spends more. The woman who only seeks after the man, or the one who has an income with career? I do wonder. So now you see even con's own statistics are destroying his arguments. Game over.

Con has NOT negated the inspiring power of women, as https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/grow-with-google/inspiring-girls-and-women-pursue-their-career-ambitions/ stresses, the independent and strong nature of having your own career far outweighs the vagueness of "chase after a man". Con even concedes that the woman may still yet want a career even after a man. "leading by example is the best way to truly show girls what they can achieve", the blog states. Indeed, should we inspire women to merely be the man's most entertaining, beautiful, charming partner? Or should we make women into the proper workforce, to contribute to society, one way or another?

Vote for pro.
Speedrace's avatar
Speedrace
Con
#4

"There are 56.8 million unmarried women in the U.S. They account for 26 percent of the overall population.". So clearly not every woman wants to be desired, or is beautiful.
Pro assumes in this argument that only beautiful women can get married. Since everyone can get married, this is more evidence for my position. Also, simply because a woman isn't married doesn't mean she didn't want to be desired, she just might be too young or still dating.

Regardless, "every woman is beautiful" is absurd.
Pro provides no evidence for this claim. Extend con's arguments..

Besides, if every woman depended on her man to find the job, all jobs that require women would be in desperate need.
Nowhere did I say that the woman would need to depend on her man to find a job.

Millions of women have become part of the essential workforce. "All women seek career" is just as bad as an extreme as "all women only chase after men".
No it isn't, because the latter doesn't cause the extinction of our species.

Next, Con's source contradicts his claim as it says... "Reporting better general health increases the likelihood of higher life satisfaction more than any other factor". This is why my health insurance benefit comes into play and arguably outweighs con's idea.
Having health insurance doesn't therefore make one's health magically better than the general population's. There was no contradiction.

Next up, Con's same source also says--  Retirees are most satisfied with their life. Well... you need employment FIRST to become a retiree.
This is false, many people have retired without jobs.

Third con's same source is saying "Average life satisfaction is higher for those spending more".
This is false. It states that it is higher for those with higher household spending. A household spends more than a single woman by far.

Con has NOT negated the inspiring power of women,
Just because they're inspiring doesn't make the rest of my points moot.

Con even concedes that the woman may still yet want a career even after a man
This is not a concession. If she already got a man then she's completed CON's goal.

"leading by example is the best way to truly show girls what they can achieve", the blog states. Indeed, should we inspire women to merely be the man's most entertaining, beautiful, charming partner? Or should we make women into the proper workforce, to contribute to society, one way or another?
This is more evidence for my position. If the voter doesn't agree that every woman qualifies as beautiful, then this shows that the beautiful women getting careers will inspire all women to chase careers instead of men, therefore still leading to a drop in pregnancy rates and the extinction of the human race.


Round 3
seldiora's avatar
seldiora
Pro
#5
con assumes that just because you are married means you are beautiful, but there are obviously other reasons to marry, such as emotional compatible, finance stability, so on and so forth. Becomingminimalist notes 8 ways marriage can be successful, and beauty is not one of them. Case defeated.

Secondly, after thinking about con's argument I realized it makes zero sense whatsoever. Men chase after women has been modern standard already, and as such not having the other way around wouldn't make the world go extinct. If con is so set on women becoming men's playthings, how would it be any different from becoming a prostitute, a career that's arguably equivalent to con's frivolous argument that argues being mans' object is better than being your own independent woman?

Con still has the slippery slope completely dependent on the idea if no woman chases after men, our species will go instinct. But I think I've negated that pretty thoroughly. Beautiful woman will always have people hitting on her and complimenting her. There is no pressure to actively go after men. While a career is very unlikely to land in your lap. Sorry about bringing in this so late; I just realized this crucial fact. Nevertheless, my argument stands strong. Career offers multiple powerful benefits that are hard to deny and give contribution to society.

Vote for pro.
Speedrace's avatar
Speedrace
Con
#6
con assumes that just because you are married means you are beautiful,
I never said this, and Pro did not show where I allegedly said it.

there are obviously other reasons to marry, such as emotional compatible, finance stability, so on and so forth. Becomingminimalist notes 8 ways marriage can be successful, and beauty is not one of them.
However, this is perfectly correct! Pro is right, there are a LOT of reasons why marriage can be successful and why people should get married. Good points Pro!

 Men chase after women has been modern standard already, and as such not having the other way around wouldn't make the world go extinct.
I kindly ask the voter to disregard this sentence, as the grammar is impeding my ability to understand it, and to therefore counter it.

If con is so set on women becoming men's playthings
I have never said this.

how would it be any different from becoming a prostitute, a career that's arguably equivalent to con's frivolous argument that argues being mans' object is better than being your own independent woman?
One, prostitution is not a career, but rather a job as per your definition (at least as I understand it). Second, Pro falsely assumes that marriage entails a woman being the object of a man. Marriage is a partnership between two people, and so is different from prostitution.

Con still has the slippery slope completely dependent on the idea if no woman chases after men, our species will go instinct. But I think I've negated that pretty thoroughly.
One, my argument does not fail even if the voter rejects my extinction contention. Second, it has not been negated. Pro still has failed to say who qualifies as beautiful, and therefore has no grounds to say that my claim is false.

Beautiful woman will always have people hitting on her and complimenting her. There is no pressure to actively go after men. While a career is very unlikely to land in your lap.
Well according this this exact evidence, a beautiful woman is more likely to succeed in getting a partner than a career. More evidence from Pro for my position.

Vote con.