Wearing no facial hair is not manly.

"Please note that typing in caps is a sign of aggressive behaviour and a sign of shouting- a behaviour clearly to be rejected whenever chatting with someone on the net." I STATED MY REASON AT THE BEGINNING. I AM NOT SHOUTING. THIS IS MY EASIEST WAY FOR CLARITY. ---- "Response to the attempted refutations of the opponent:" "ATTEMPTED" IS A NEGATIVE COMMENT WITH NO SUBSTANCE AND IS RUDE. ---- "'NO. BEHAVIOR IS WHAT MAKES A MAN A MAN. THERE ARE PLENTY OF MEN WHO HAVE LUXURIANT BEARDS BUT HORRID BEHAVIOR. THE BEARD DOES NOT MAKE THE MAN. SOME MEN ARE NOT, (FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD ) HORNY. THEIR BEARDS DO NOT MAKE THEM SEXUAL. SOME MEN ARE, NATURALLY, NOT HAIRY BUT ARE PLENTY SEXUAL AND SOME WOMEN ARE HAIRY BUT LOVELY.' If you have read my post at number four, I have already stated that it does not falsify the proposition that wearing no facial hair is not manly- true manliness does lies at the behaviours and thoughts of the man inside him." THEN YOU HAVE REFUTED YOUR WHOLE DEBATE AND WE ARE, ONLY, DISCUSSING STYLE. ---- "It could be argued that explicit expression of a man might reveal something that is main and concrete values and attitudes a man has inside him. The outside might be tasty, but the inside is even much more tastier, if you get the idea of this saying. Outward expression of something might reveal us something the man hid inside himself." BIG MAYBE AND, REALLY, NOT WORTH SAYING THAT *ALL* BEARDS MEAN X ----- "'NOPE. IT JUST GROWS THERE, WITHOUT ANY THOUGHT WHATSOEVER. RESPECT IS EARNED, NOT GIVEN AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A BEARD. PLENTY OF MEN ARE TOO POOR TO GET TO A SINK TO SHAVE.'. True respect is never earned, it has been something given already for us, so "earning" to have it is just refining and enhancing that respect given to us already." NO. THAT IS A MODERN MISREPRESENTATION OF THE WORD 'RESPECT" AND BECAUSE YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE NOT LEARNED POLITENESS. RESPECT IS EARNED. POLITENESS IS GIVEN. ---- " If you have read my proposition, No. 2 just outlines what symbolism and a representation what a beard could bear. You also have to realise, I was recapping ideas that became prominent during ancient times and still given attention to even in modern times in association with facial hairs." I DO NOT have TO REALIZE ANYTHING. EITHER YOU HAVE MADE YOUR POINT OR YOU HAVE NOT. THE ONLY POINT YOU MADE IN THE TWO SENTENCES, ABOVE, IS A STYLE-POINT ---- "'NOPE. PLENTY OF WIMPS ARE WAY-HAIRY.'. And those who are not too way hairy are also wimps. We could argue about this all over and over, but there's no need to argue about this since both sides are in the same boat whatsoever." YES. SO, YOUR WHOLE DEBATE POINT IS NOTHING BUT STYLE. ---- "'ARE YOU EXPOUSING POOR BEHAVIOR?' Now my opponent made an instant straw man out of the statements I have made. Does "inner animal" instantly means poor behaviour? Suppose somebody said to you, 'Inside you, is a heart of a lion.'. Does that mean then, that somebody meant as of you being bad-mannered inwardly? No. An "inner animal" could mean of bravery, courage, inspiration or honour too, it doesn't have to be equated with poor behaviour of all sorts." I DID NOT MAKE A "STRAW MAN". I ASKED A QUESTION." "INNER-ANIMAL" IS, RATHER, A EUPHEMISM FOR "LESS-THAN CONTROLLED BEHAVIOR". SO, I ASKED RATHER THAN ASSUMED. ---- "'NO. EGYPTIANS REMOVED THEIR HAIR DUE TO SAND LICE' Didn't I said'...though clean-shaven....'? I acknowledged their clean-shaven faces of Egyptians, but giving a reason why Egyptians wear false beards, because beards is a sign of royalty and divinity to them (as shown in some depictions of Osiris being explicitly bearded). The Egyptians were merely copying what their god looks like so they too can become "gods" of their own. 'ASSOCIATION DOES NOT ENSURE ACTUALITY.' This is because everyone has different perspectives and values concerning about the meaning of beards of course. But if we strip away different interpretations and consider the original meaning , we will know for sure what ideas this concept stands for. For example, what does the red traffic light mean in the road? Stop where you are going in life? Stop and start to fix up problems? Or does it mean to stop the car before the traffic light? Association does ensure actuality and can be applied on certain circumstances." NOT FOR BEARDS. -------------- "'AND YET, THE PENIS IS, STILL, THERE AND SO IS THE "ADAM'S APPLE.'. This has nothing to do with what we are discussing here right now. You are taking it literally when I said it metaphorically, hence you committed the literalist fallacy. You are being sarcastic and is a sign of put down, therefore you lose points for breaking rule #2, I have clearly stated the contender must abide by these rules and so am I if we are to debate." THE BEARD DOES NOT MAKE THE MAN. BEING BORN WITH MALE GENITALIA MAKES THE MAN. YOU'RE, STILL, DISCUSSING STYLE AND YOU AREN'T THE ONE WHO GIVES THE POINTS. ----- "'THIS "SIGN" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOUR.'. Now is my opponent has erred in his or her ways. I am stating what ideas or concepts could be grouped with if a man has or has no beards whatsoever. Beards or no beards, there are some ideas and concepts that can be associated with if you have beard or no beard." NOPE. IT'S ALL STYLE. WE MIGHT AS WELL DISCUSS NECKTIE STYLES AS EXAMPLES OF MANLY NESS OR TOOL-BELT WEARING. ------ "'AS IF ANYONE CARES TODAY.'. My opponent broke the rule # 2 I have stated before this debate started and has put down my argument and calmly dismissed it than giving at least a polite answer for such. Hence, he or she lost a point for civility in this discussion." YOU AREN'T GIVING THE POINTS. YOU are DISCUSSING, VERY, OLD FASHIONED IDEAS ABOUT BEARDS. MOST MEN SHAVE IN THIS DAY AND AGE. SO, YES, MOST PEOPLE WILL NOT CARE TO JOIN YOU IN YOUR STYLE-CHOICES NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TELL THAT THEY AREN'T "REAL" MEN UNLESS THEY AGREE WITH YOU. ------ "'THERE ARE PLENTY OF WAYS TO MOURN' You're missing the point, you're inserting your own subjective interpretations in one instance that I have recorded instead of basing interpretations as clearly given in the text." YOU ADDED IN THE BEARD-REMOVAL-FOR-MOURNING. THAT WAS NOT YOUR, ORIGINAL, POINT. ----- ""'THE HEART IS A PUMPING MUSCLE FOR BLOOD AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EMOTION.'. So, why do we still hear of news using the terms "The Sun will rise at 6 am' and, 'The sun will go down at 4 pm'? " BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE STUPID. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "WARMUP". THERE ARE NO MUSCLES IN YOUR "CORE". THERE ARE ORGANS AND FOOD. NO ONE SHOULD WEAR A SHOE WITH A NON-RECTANGLE FRONT AND A LIFTED HEEL. PEOPLE DO ALL SORTS OF STUPID THINGS. "Yet we know the Earth spins around the sun right? This is what you call phenomenal language- a term for descriptive terms for everydaysituations. It's politically correct to use such terms and acceptable for using it." ------- "'SO, WHY PULL IT UP AS A DEBATE THEN?' Why then, have you decided to participate when it's common-sense to you that what counts is the inside, not the outside? That is a silly question to ask, #4 is there to say that it does not falsify my proposition that, 'Wearing no facial hair is not manly' even if what counts is the inside, not outside. Plus, this is more of a "discussion" than debate anyway." DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE TYPING AT A DEBATE SITE? ----- "'THIS IS A TOTAL "MAYBE". SPOT THE PSYCHOPATH AND MAKE NO MISTAKES IF YOU CAN GUESS WITHOUT ERROR.'. My opponent traded patience for rage, swapped patience with impatience and bargained foolishness over understanding. I grin at such whether my friend here is getting irritated at this debate and typing off furiously at my given proposals." YOU SAY THAT YOU CAN JUDGE THE INSIDE BY THE OUTSIDE. OK. SPOTTING A PSYCHOPATH SHOULD BE EASY FOR YOU THEN. ----- "'THIS IS STYLISTIC CONJECTURE/YOUR OPINION AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE, ACTUAL, BEHAVIOR OF THE MAN.'. Yet you said in your first response that what counts for a man is the behaviour not outwardly expressions, you contradicted yourself therefore, I am clearly expounding on the idea that, 'Behaviours what makes a man, not outward expressions.' in this sentence. You also committed the subjectivist fallacy, making an objective claim "subjective"- yet I made an objective claim here without relying on my subjective views as you do have one as well and you're relegating it to as "subjective"." ALL STYLE. NOT THE MAN. ------ "'BEARDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HONESTY.BEARDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PATIENCE.BEARDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH VIRTUE.And arrogance and near put down-esque behaviours have nothing to do with this debate, you broke some rules you agreed on if you are to debate with me.Too, straw man fallacy.That statement above simply means that an outward expression could be what is inside you, have you ever what my last sentence stands for?" ALL STYLE. NOT THE MAN ---- "'MANY, ANCIENT, PEOPLE'S REMOVED HAIR FOR HYGIENE-REASONS, NOT FOR STYLE-REASONS. WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF FOOD THAT CAN GET CAUGHT OR LOOK AT "BEARD-RINGWORM" YOU CAN SEE THEIR POINT.'.Does this refute my propositions? Of course many people do something for lots of different reasons, common sense dictates us so. Next time, I encourage here my friend to learn to abide by the rules as so do am I also. Some of your responses are clear putdowns or insulting sarcasms which have no place in debates." YOUR USE OF THE WORD "FRIEND" IS NOT PART OF DEBATE.