Please observe and listen to this prior to reading my debate (my love and appreciation of beauty go out to all involved and last but not least my fine opponent Ehyeh):
The blind man's first feel of a face...
Let's start literal as it gets, your blind brother and non-blind mother meets your girlfriend for the first time.
Her voice his his ear, her face hits your mother's eye, her body, her dress, her way of moving and being... It is perceived completely in different orders and your mother remarks "Lawd you are stunning aint ya?" while your brother grabs you by the shirt and whispers "Ehyeh, I must agree but brother I worry, she has not the best skin... it is rather dry and I noticed that you are smelling a little off quickly rinse your armpits and balls and get some antiperspirant on before proceeding. Invite her to use the skin cream while you are there."
We cannot explain the beauty the blind man received in all reality to the mother and brother but much less so can the inverse be explained.
If beauty weren't in the eye of the beholder, the blind man would need absolute correlation with the 'standard' of eye-judgers every time, how often does my opponent propose that holds true?
How literal is this resolution being defended?
There's more to beauty than sex, take music for instance.
I get it, this debate is about 'human beauty' but that includes their voice. It also reminds me of music. The same song, the same artist, can be seen and heard so beautiful and authentic to some and jarrying, nasal, offputting, generic etc to others.
Don't believe me?
Take any massively popular artist, I bet they have passionate haters who find them revolting and perhaps devoid of depth, music included but personalities too.
How is that possible? How is it possible for two people to find some attractive that others find ugly? It just is. It is natural variance at play, different genes, brain structure, memories of 'beauty' from childhood and adolescence, hormones, all kinds of things are at play and the thing is it's not just about sex.
Do you find your grandmother 'ugly' because she's so wrinkly? Did you (if she's passed away)?
What about your favourite teacher? Were they 'ugly' to you (yes I mean their looks). This 'bias' is how we are able to find some more and less beautiful on a genuine level based on our vibe around them and impression.
'Steelman against RM'
What is this steelman cutiepie stuff? Why would I need to point out that in different eras different bodies were held as desirable? That makes it seem like the objective standards merely moved up and down, left and right etc. I am telling you that even if everybody agreed on beauty standards within a vicinity, that is still because every individual there had in their 'eye' so to speak, the same individual standards beholden to their subjective take.
There is no such thing as objective beauty standards, instead you can objectively estimate based on survey results and people's reactions to things, what most will happen to find appealing vs offputting and work around that.
There isn't some strict logic or code to it. My opponent didn't begin to form one. Maybe my opponent is alluding to 'health' being the beauty standard but what is healthy?
Some like big, some like slender, some like (yes I had to go there) dark, some like lighter, some like hairy, some like more bare, I mean there's so much to it, voice included.
Even smell.
Body odour of those closer related to us is meant to be taken as more disgusting by our noses, it's an evolutionary measure against incest that those who lacked had their genepool deteriorate etc. Females that are heterosexual (or leaaning towards preferring men) in particular have been proven to oddly find male pheromones attractive, especially if he's particularly far from them genetically (racially). The inverse with men to women sort of works but it has not been proven to be as strong (he just finds it less stinky not directly attractive).
I'll provide proofs in next round.
Cheers to my opponent, much love, Wing Chun for life (jk there's a lot more to Kung Fu, why'd you think I only like Wing Chun?)
My intention was never to argue beauty exists outside any observer. Simply that it is mostly innate, although as you already know I've not been motivated at all to do debates.
Because your eye sees it that way
Some things. I don't even deny that within my debate. We're strictly talking about genetic beauty for humans, even then both humans and animals agree on some things being beautiful (such as symmetry and health). Simplicity and averageness is always beautiful. Thats enough in my worldview to account for most of human "beauty" as you can have the best jawline but if its lopsided or one eye is on your forehead and the other on your nose, you're ugly no matter how nice your jaw.
Humans still have different beauty standards from other animals tho, so it's still eye of the beholder.
Some things may be conflated. Yet i hold true that its both inborn and universal that no one is turnt off by clear skin.
Universal and inborn appear to be conflated here.
very well.
I will defend in Round 2 the difference between something having basis in brain chemistry and most humans having trends and it being outside of the eye of the beholder. That expansion will become the crux of my case.
I already hinted at it so it won't be a brand new point.
On the ropes? You haven't even posted your argument. Although I love to lose debates, if you truly think you have positive and logical insight, I would love for you to make your argument.
And that right there reveals who is up against the ropes.
I'm not too sure. If you do post it, we will naturally debate it. If you don't, it will free up more of my time to have other debates. Its up to you really? If you're confident in your argument and do want to debate the topic, go for it. If not, i recommend you forfeit.
Do you think I should post the Round 1?
I've never seen rationalmadman take so long to make an argument. Hes on the ropes, he's crumbling under pressure.
i suppose thats true.
Lmao, imagine I hadn't blocked you and you could @ me with more of your nonsense. At least you didn't appear in my notifications.
I've come to learn that RM is a very emotionally fragile man who blocks people on the site over the most mundane things. I hope one day he learns he gives others power over him with his childish reactions. He becomes controlled by the person. He lets them dictate his emotional well-being and mental state.
We can agree status matters more if you have bountiful status, but most men don't and its statistically impossible for most men too. This then means your status is secondary for most men.
I did not ignore that critique cause over 90% of human beings who desire to procreate are heterosexual. Your point is an exception to the rule, one I care not about since it is outside the norm.
Look...the point of my comment was not about getting down to the nitty gritty of it all, it was purely on the basics of laws of attraction based in psychology. It begins with what was mentioned. First it is looks for men, and first it is stability and not looks for women. Seeing as we both agree on that salient point.
I'm not wrong, we agree. I agree women have a preference for status/wealth over looks. But a straight woman wouldn't date a billionaire woman if they acted like a man. You completely ignored that critique.
I can google dating statistics for men based on online dating, and im sure we will find a difference in average matches based solely just off a mans height. Showing women are PHYSICALLY attracted to a mans height. The halo effect exists, a woman will find you more assertive and dominant for being taller, keeping her finding you more interesting to talk too over text all other things equal.
Being wealthy can help you overcome your physical shortcomings as a man (sometimes and up to a limit) but most men cannot become rich its statistically impossible. Which means men must compete on other fronts such as personality and looks, this is the case for the vast majority of men. Not all of us can be economic/social outliers. How many men are so rich to the point their looks don't matter anymore? 0.5% of all men?
"Thats so bullshit i dont know where to begin. Yes, women put more pressure on social status and wealth as opposed to men but women do have physical preferences too, or all of them would be bisexual. Or would women be attracted to other women if they acted like a man? please."
>> What's bullshit about it? I mean really, you just admitted I was correct that women put more pressure on social status and wealth as opposed to men, and nowhere did I ever state women did not have some preference for physical attraction.
Your retort is purely sophomoric ignorance.
It is an affirmed psychological fact (studied relentlessly) that women look for stability before physical appearances. Yes, some women are mental and only go for the looks, and those women end up in horrible relationships, divorced, or victims of DV. That too has been studied and affirmed.
You're wrong. Again.
You will always be the second most handsome on the site RM, always one step behind my good looks.
I'm jon jones, you're lyoto machida with your wingchun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qRJHxhx-sg
This is gonna become Mcgregor vs Khabib if you keep up the trash talk like that.
You're choking. 2 hours and still no argument produced, you're bamboozled and discombulated.
We'll see about that. Make your argument and we will see. I imagine i wont even disagree with you, we will agree and ill simply build upon it. I would agree beauty and sex aren't necessarily related. We will see if that detracts from me in any-way though.
It's amusing to me that the biggest flaw in your case was one you didn't think to put words into RM's mouth and say he'll say:
Wanting to fuck someone/something and finding him/her/them/it beautiful are not entirely related at all.
You can find the tiger in my image beautiful, doesn't mean you want to bang. You can find your grandmother beautiful...
Thats so bullshit i dont know where to begin. Yes, women put more pressure on social status and wealth as opposed to men but women do have physical preferences too, or all of them would be bisexual. Or would women be attracted to other women if they acted like a man? please.
This is a yes and no debate. Yes for men, no for women.
Men want looks in the female, and women want social status, strength, and stability ... not looks.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/study-shows-men-prefer-looks-women-prefer-social-status
I need to make sure i get my titles and descriptions correct from now on as to not get caught half way through editing them!