Beauty pageants do more good than harm

This debate shows how beauty pageants (BP) do more good > harm. Con took a pop-feminist stance, I took an intellectually braver stance. Con's stance: (BP) dehumanize (false). Thus, women die b/c of their actions via suicide or eating disorders (false), or the actions of crazed men who rape and kill them. (false) My take? BP doesn't dehumanize, and it leads to the joy of discovering the 1) art of using one's body, inspires others to do the same, and it entertains. 2) It opens a public mass discourse on beauty, 3A) it educates the people who only judge by looks that they should not AND (3B) educates about other causes 4) increases the # of alternative beauty standards and 5). lowers crime. Read below for 3.2), 4), & 5). While refuting, I'll refer to Con's paragraphs. R= round, P- Paragraph. Example, R3 P6 = "Women aren't inspired…" I apologize for coding, but PhPr's unstructured unsignposted, rambling makes them necessary. R3P2-P3 (round 3, paragraphs 2 & 3) Yes, Aesthetics was a philosophy. Like I said, the public did not discuss it at a mass level. Most people aren't philosophers. I didn't say all people hate BP, just that it makes beauty consciously visible for the masses, some of whom become critics against the beauty's social role. This supports my 2nd argument. R3P4 Nor do BP silence this discussion. They stimulate and are an expression of it. See my 4th argument. R3P5-P6, P15 Inspiration: Certainly most will not become the top winner in a BP. That does not mean they would never improve their ability to show their bodies and faces as art to themselves and others, which helps careers too. Competition: The idea that they will become depressed because they are not number one is an exaggeration. None of us is number one in capitalism except Bill Gates, and we are not killing ourselves over it. No one starves himself to save money. Competition isn't bad cause it motivates improvement. Improvement makes us richer in money and beauty. Should sports teams, should societies not improve? R3P7 Women do enjoy their beauty without BPs, but some never consciously consider it, and they ignore it at their own risk. (careers, art, crime, etc). Thus, for these particular women, BP gets them into it. For others, it is still entertaining. R3P8-P9 I am sorry that sociology offends PhPr. The real world offends me too but one of the many reasons the poor are poor is because people have a bias in favor of looks. Education is an investment worthwhile, as society is biased by academic credentials. Society is also biased by looks, so looks are an investment too. Both education and looks need wise investment, to be worthwhile. I'll remind you that very few people enter BP, so most of Con's remarks are irrelevant. Main effect is on viewers. In R3P10 My benefits were accused of being…1) Not Unique: I have no burden to show that they are unique. Even if they were, and that made them an irrelevant factor, then Con's refutation is also irrelevant. And Con just admitted that there are benefits. 2) harms: Refuted 3) Vague: That's life. Art is vague. Beauty is subjective. Doesn't mean the judges don't know what it is. Good luck defining it. But Benefits to careers and decreased crime aren't vague. R3 P11-P14 If PhPr sees a mannequin in a shop window, he'll say it promotes rape. My response: Only to the Taliban, who tend not to have BP in their societies anyway. Amazingly, PhPr never refuted my 3rd argument at the end of round 3 scroll back up and read it. My arguments: 3B) BP contestants regularly promote social causes; world peace, ending global hunger, and banning fur. Reducing landmines, unsustainable logging, and illegal arms trade would be harder without them giving these little-known specialty causes media attention via BP. People look these causes up, and some donate time or money to them. Entire BP support some causes. (Miss Earth, Jumbo Queen Elephant conservation, etc. 4) Alternative standards of beauty As Con says, there's a globalization of the standard of beauty. And yet today's mainstream BP, are becoming more post modern; the winners are not always what rich white men traditionally wanted. Whites literally rioted in 83 when Vanessa Williams won Miss America, but she went on to big things. Since then, we've had winners with traditional Latina, African, or Asian looks. Some of these women have a full, healthy shape, rather than looking weak. Not all mainstream judges vote along with mainstream white-male traditions, and there's alternative BP the outside mainstream too. BP can be held by any group of people who wants to promote any standard of beauty. For example, Okinawans can hold a beauty BP for "Traditional Okinawan beauty". There's no limit to the # of BP you can find or start. Today we ALREADY have Miss India, Latina, Asia & BP for plus-sized women in many countries. The variety of BP is WIDENING the narrow spectrum of acceptable beauty. To call this trend harmful is to oppose alternative beauty standards. These alternatives help empower oppressed people (plus-sized women, racial minorities, developing countries, etc) by showing the world that it is natural even for non-Westerners to be proud of themselves. Let them feel and use an identity to counter the traditional power brokers, to whom it sends the message that the ways of rich Western men are not automatically the best, that they should respect the other viewpoints in the today's globalized world. 5) Crime If Con says BP is bad b/c of a tiny chance to lead to murder/rape, then he must say that any potentially bad influence with a tiny chance to lead to those crimes also does more harm than good. Action movies, comics, video games lead to violence, ballet to rape. Two mistakes here. 1) Even if one person in 6 billion a year got victimized as a result of BP, the harm is outweighed by her getting to live in a fun society until then, and by all other people living in a fun society. BP is a form of entertainment, and is meant to be fun. Even if BP did pose a risk, people are willing to accept risk to live in a modern world that allows women to show what they can do with themselves. Many have willingly died for freedom before. 2) Even if there was a link between entertainment and crime, what makes Con think it's a bad one? More BP doesn't = more crimes. BP replaces/ substitutes for crime. For that one crazed man who would contemplate rape based on entertainment, BP is an alternative. If it is entertaining enough, then he is satisfied enough to not rape. Remember there's no BP in Saudi Arabia, where women are covered head to toe and still get raped all the time. In Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, marital and statutory rape are legal, victims are blamed, often executed. Despite the many deterrents victims face about reporting these crimes, they still do. Pakistan: domestic violence rates as high as 90%, at least 8 reported rapes every 24 hours nationwide, and an alarming rise in "honor" killings. HRW.org This argument also refutes Con: Hiding your body doesn't prevent crime. It increases crime because it sends the message that crime is the fault of the victim for not covering up. Plus, it doesn't give the crazed man's eyes enough to satisfy his urges and prevent him from raping. BP decrease these crimes by lessening the need to commit them, & by lessening the chance for men to blame the victims by saying "it is her fault because she is pretty". b/c BP are the norm, that simply cannot be said so often. Summary Con misrepresented my stance. I Never said all women should enter BP and be #1-never even argued that many women WOULD enter, just that they would consider entering, few would, less would win any. But I did argue the benefits for all concerned. BP doesn't dehumanize. It's 1) fun art for models/viewers 2) A public debate 3A) it educates Biased people not to only judge by looks (3B) educates about other causes 4) Widens narrow standards of beauty 5). lowers crime, thus BP=good>harm