Beauty is better than brains

Haha, I'd welcome you to the site, but I have yet to complete any debates here myself, so I don't want to seem presumptuous. :P On to the debate.My opponent opens, claiming that beauty is not an achievement of any kind. This is patently false. Granted, some facial features are naturally more attractive and are genetic, being hereditary, however many other factors combine to have a much greater role than hereditary facial features. Things such as makeup, grooming, hygiene, hair care, fashion choices, exercise, skin care, posture, walk, and general bearing all are SIGNIFICANT when someone evaluates an individual's beauty. And all of these things are made more attractive when time is spent honing them and working on them. This clearly evident truth is represented in how prevalent the "before & after" picture trope is. There could be no "before" and "after" of something that is received at birth. Con also implicitly assumes that brains are thus NOT natural. I will show this to be false as well. Knowledge is of course not inherent--it must be learned. Learning is far more effectively accomplished when the task is approached with diligence and hard work. However knowledge is a small fraction of what constitutes "brains." For example, IQ, a commonly recognized approximation for intelligence measurement, measures cognitive ability. This is genetic and hereditary. Using myself as an anecdote, I have an above-average IQ. This has allowed me to wildly succeed in all of the minimum wage jobs my lack of experience initially forced me to endure. Community college, while difficult and requiring work for my peers, was easy for me to get As in without so much as opening the book. (Universities haven't proved to be AS easy, admittedly.) But above average IQs are ascertainable from a young age, and generally stay consistent, even through the acquisition of knowledge. In addition to cognitive ability and knowledge, there are many other forms of "brains," proving false my opponent's (again implicit) claim that "brains" as an idea is far more objective. There is fluid intelligence, crystal intelligence, emotional intelligence--it does not boil down to how well one scores on the SAT. As for beauty remaining largely undefined--it is true, many people have different specific definitions. However our definition for the purpose of this debate I argue would be largely acknowledged as an acceptable definition. Beauty of character is beyond the scope of this debate. And as such, it is relatively easy to at the very least approximate a gradation of beauty if given a sufficient range of options, e.g., photos of the population.Beauty does not last forever, Con argues, while brains do. (Ability is beyond the scope of this debate, as it is very possible to have brains but lack the motivation to accomplish a given task. see: me) This claim is also not nearly as clear-cut as my opponent makes it out to be. Does my opponent argue that there are not many beautiful people past the age of 45? Mental decline begins very early, becoming clear into the 40s. [1] This is apart from any sort of age-related mental affliction, such as Alzheimer's or dementia. (My opponent may not simply brush away a major opposing argument to her position by stating that she is "disregarding it.")On top of all this, brains often serve to alienate those less intelligent than oneself. Superiors who happen to be less intelligent tend to be intimidated and not supportive. Whereas for beautiful people, multiple studies show that people who are generally said to be attractive, or beautiful to be more likely to be acquitted, more likely to be voted into public office, and more likely to receive praise from teachers. [2] Thus, beauty has many benefits! If you are sufficiently sexually attractive, the option occasionally presents itself to obtain shortcuts to your goals by having sex with certain people, whether they be employers, or investors. This is not legal, however it contributes to potential benefit and utility. (I will remind the voters that morality is not being discussed in this debate.)[1] http://faculty.virginia.edu...;[2] http://www.hofstra.edu...;I look forward to my opponent's arguments in return.