What is Undesirable May Very Well Be Appropriate

This resolution's aim (and why the definitions are so specific) is to isolate a specific aspect of desirability, that being any aspect of desirability that is imprudent, or undesirability that is prudent. Any talk about equating prudency to desirability, or undesirability to imprudence, would of course allow most people to reach an easy conclusion about the appropriateness of any desire or action. That is not the goal of this debate. What my opponent will probably aim to do, which I expected, would be to focus on how anything that is prudent is desirable. I fully agree with this, and I don't consider such a statement to be debatable. Furthermore, I may still fully agree with such an assertion, and still prove my position in this debate to be fully sound and valid on a logical basis. I understand that quite a few people may have an objection to the exemption of prudency to this resolution. .. the bottom line is that "desirability" NEED NOT conform to BOTH "having pleasing qualities or properties" AND "worth seeking or doing as advantageous, beneficial, or wise". .. it need only be one or the other for something to be desirable. I will focus only on the former, and proving the resolution with only this aspect of desirability will constitute my meeting of burden of proof given the specificity of this resolution. That was the goal of the exemption, and I will stick to this form of argumentation. ArgumentI was going to lead with a symbolic deconstruction of this resolution because it's so specific and semantics-based, but I will refrain from doing so unless I sense fallacious reasoning, because I think I may lose more people doing so than not. Instead, I will just proffer examples. Can something be desirable and imprudent? Sure. Monica Lewinsky immediately comes to mind. .. apparently Bill Clinton indulged in her "pleasing qualities or properties" (whatever they may be) while having thoughts or experiencing consequences that most people agree would be anything but prudent. Another example would be having roses "au naturel" in a vase/pot with thorns and everything, which while desirable to a lot of naturalists, may be imprudent if you have children around that just like to grab things. Can something be undesirable and prudent? Sure. Working out. Do it long enough, and I assure you that the constant and persistent soreness will wear on you and most certainly will make it undesirable. Prudent? Well, of course, right? Who wouldn't benefit from some body-chiseling? Who wouldn't find this appropriate? (this assumes you're working out safely. .. we're not talking about people who pull this-or-that muscle while benching 3 times their known max)So, in the case of working out, we have a clear-cut case of something undesirable, prudent, and appropriate, which directly affirms the resolution. I remind audiences that as the resolution is phrased, I NEED NOT prove that ALL undesirable things are appropriate, only that they MAY BE appropriate. Working out easily meets burden of proof for such a position. There's really not much to it other than this. I'm certain CON will proffer something quite convincing, as he has proven to do already in the comments section. The real question for this debate is whether or not his case will be relevant to the resolution. I await CON's case and response.