Backpacks are better than purses.

My opponent's first comment was: "A backpack or a purse should not relect who you are as a person. I personally could care less what people think about me and whether or not I am taken seriously." First of all, her opinion and public opinion are quite different. There are people who believe that you shouldn't need to wear clothing at all, but the majority of the public agrees that wearing clothing is proper behavior. My opponent has also stated that she doesn't care what others think of her, therefore can wear a backpack as she pleases. But, what my opponent hasn't realized is that most people do care what others think about them because it directly influences something in their lives. What their boss thinks of them reflects on their pay and work, what their date thinks of them reflects on their future relationship, and so forth. Unfortunately, my opponent has stated her opinion and not realized that the world does not work on her opinions but on collective opinions of the democratic nation that do not match her thoughts. My opponent's next argument was: "You have proposed that purses are better as they are more "fashionable" and help one to be taken more seriously. They are better to take to the theatre, etc. But backpacks are better overall. Better defined as more advantageous or effective. I don't care about fashion therefore purses do not benefit me.I guess it depends on which world you want to be taken seriously in." Again, my opponent used opinion instead of fact. My opponent doesn't seem to have read my advantages in carrying a purse, or my writings on how being fashionable aids an individual in the work place and in life. My opponent has also stated that she doesn't care about fashion. Also an opinion. As an extreme example, person might not care about murder, but that still doesn't remove that fact that it is illegal in this country. That, again, is their opinion, not fact. My opponent then states: "I must inject here that before you go to the dinner or orchestra you need money which comes from work. And you actually state that work is a serious thing to be doing. But most jobs require an education which means you must become a STUDENT first." My opponent doesn't realize that I never said being a student was a bad thing or a not needed thing to be. I just stated that being a student was not a serious thing to be. We must all be students, of course, to get a job. My opponent is just quibbling my former statement, which of course, is very fallacious. Then she goes on to state: "I personally would prefer studying, traveling and hiking so a backpack would be a better alternative. If I took a purse hiking I would not be taken "seriously" by the other hikers. A backpack is more convenient as I can wear the backpack on my back of course, leaving my hands free." Again, this is her opinion, as she said "I personally would prefer" the following activities. What my opponent failed to recognize is that this doesn't prove that backpacks are better over all. Hiking, by the way, doesn't help earn money for the individual. Therefore, something that you choose to do for fun isn't as necessary as a job. This adds to my argument that purses are "better over all" than backpacks. I never stated that backpacks never had their place as they would be a faulty invention (and I did mention in my last argument that hikers, students and the such use them and of course, for reason). My opponent then closes with: "I'm so disapointed to find out that I will not accomplish my goal of becoming a writer because I just wear jeans, tshirt and a backpack. Darn, I never got the memo stating that I had to dress up and carry a purse to meet that goal! Backpacks are better because their purpose is more effective...to carry more items with less discomfort. Like I state before, you can carry things on your back, leaving your arms free to get more "serious" work accomplished!" My opponent is again quibbling. She is taking a minor exception and blowing it up. Of course, not all jobs need purses, but MOST jobs do rather than backpacks. I'm afraid that she made a mistake by stating that writers do not need to dress well. I write myself, and I know that when I am interviewing someone for something I am writing, I do need to dress well in order for them to take me seriously, trust me, and trust their information with me. If I am writing at home, of course, I wont need to dress up as I am not needing to do any of these things. I also do not appreciate my opponents use of childish sarcasm to attack my reasoning. Facts, logic, and her own reasoning would have worked better. Then my opponent goes on to mention the other careers that don't need you to "dress" well. What my opponent fails to recognize is that these professions have a form of "fashion" themselves. Even if a marine biologist's form of fashion is not like that of a business woman, it doesn't mean that not all marine biologist's adhere to this. I know that most archeologists prefer to wear cargo pants because they can carry more things and because they are more durable. Because of this, they have created a fashion statement among their profession, and to be taken seriously, you must follow this fashion statement. My opponent has proven my point, that fashion is important, but my opponent hasn't realized what fashion really is and has decided to attack it by, really, using it in a way. Hopefully I have covered enough for my opponent, and now, of course, it is time for our voters to make their educated decisions on who they believe won this debate. Regards, Vi