Wearing no facial hair is not manly.

To dawndawndawn, 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. Response to the attempted refutations of the opponent: '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. 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. 'NOPE. IT JUST GROW 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. 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. '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. '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. '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. '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. '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. '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. '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. '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'? Yet we know the Earth spins around the sun right? This is what you call phenomenal language- a term for descriptive terms for everyday situations. 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. '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. '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". '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? '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. Some bearded men are as much as hygienic as clean-shaven men as well. Also, how easy it is to get off food with a wipe of a cloth or hands? Consider also this written account from webmd.com on beard-ringworm (http://www.webmd.com...): 'Ringworm is an infection on your skin, hair, or nails. It is caused by a fungus. Ringworm of the scalp occurs in children and adults all over the world. It is most common in young children. Ringworm of the beard is not common.'. So you can see, beard or no beard, you still get it; adult or kid, you still get it. 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. Sorry for late response, my priorities for school are taking over lately. But I do find time to juggle it up.