zits are cool

Resolved: Zits are coolBurden Analysis My opponent, Pro, is affirming the resolution. Therefore, the entirety of the burden of proof lies with him. I will offer my own argument, which is more of a framework for this debate, and then will explain why my opponent's argument do not fit the bill for fulfilling his burden of proof. First, I will offer some definitions. Zits -- a small, red, swollen spot on the skin (1) Cool (in context) -- fashionably attractive or impressive (2) (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) Google definition "cool" Next, here is what my opponent must be able to prove conclusively in order to win this debate: P1) If zits possess (x), (y), and (z) criteria, they are objectively "cool. " P2) Zits possess (x), (y), and (z) criteria. C1) Therefore, zits are objective "cool. " Indeed, Pro is affirming a resolution with the objective term "cool. " Therefore, he must not only be able to define this criteria by which he affirms objectivity and an objective conception of coolness -- establishing, of course, why these criteria fit the bill and advance his burden of proof -- but also prove that zits possess these criteria which make the objectively cool. The primary point, however, is that whether or not something is cool or not is subjective. What I consider "cool," or even the criteria by which I judge coolness, will differ from what Pro thinks is cool or the criteria by which he judges coolness. Others will have different criteria and this extends ad infinitum. There is no objective or universal criteria or conception of coolness. Pro must be able to prove that there is. Otherwise, if one person disagrees with his supposition, he loses this debate. Let's syllogize that argument: P1) If one person disagrees with the notion that zits are cool, they are not objectively cool. P2) I, JohnMaynardKeynes, disagree with the notion that zits are cool. C1) Therefore, zits are not objectively cool. P3) If zits are not objectively cool, Pro cannot fulfill his burden of proof. C2) Therefore, Pro cannot fulfill his burden of proof. With that out of the way, I will now rebut Pro's arguments. Pro says, "actualy im zit free :( "This is irrelevant. He provides a frown face which is to lead us to believe that he wishes he had a zit. Pro therefore must think that zits are cool. However, this is his subjective opinion and by no means is it universal. Also note Pro's grammatical errors. What he meant to say was, "Actually, I'm zit free. " Please take this into account, voters. Pro says, "but did you know that every new celebrety has at least one"Pro should have capitalized "but," ended his last statement with a period, correctly spelled "celebrity," and ended his sentence with a question mark. Second, Pro has provided us with no evidence of this claim or why this could possibly establish criteria for objective coolness. Why does he only note new celebrities? Why doesn't Jennifer Aniston count? She has done commerical for her gorgeous, zit-free skin, and she is widely considered as "cool" (See the youtube video). . http://www.youtube.com...Third, there are plenty of celebrities without perfect skin. How you define "new" is subjective, of course (meaning that what Pro considers new may be different from what someone else considers new, so the distinction is largely null), but Pro hasn't established this criterion, anyway, or why we should prioritize new over old. The list of celebrities with the "Best skin in Hollywood" -- which means zit-free -- according to starpulse. com (. http://www.starpulse.com...) are as follows: 1. Nicole Kidman2. Ashkton Kutcher3. Lucy Liu 4. Halley Berry 5. Ryan Reynolds6. Liv Tyler7. Beyonce Knowles8. Jennifer Love Hewitt 9. Hayden Panettiere 10. Reese WitherspoonAnd if Pro wants an example of a "new" celebrity, without a zit, how about Sarah Hyland? As you can see (. http://www.starpulse.com...) by looking at this image of her, she is zit-free! Pro says, "I am so jelious. "First, he mispelled "jealous. " Second, this is irrelevant. Pro says, "Even though most loosers will tell you they arn't, the truth is 97.8 persent of people who say zits are unatractive hate homosexuals. "There are a lot of problems with this contention. he first and most glaring problem is that it doesn't, in the slightest, advance Pro's burden of proof: it doesn't establish criteria, justify criteria, nor apply those criteria to zits. Rather, it merely asserts a bogus statistic -- with no sources whatsoever, so it can obviously be discredited as nonsensical -- attacking people with happen to think zits are unnattractive, which, by the way, is practically everyone. The subtle problem, though, is that Pro concedes that at least some people -- granted, the actual number of people who find zits unattractive is much, much higher than Pro suggests, but bear with me for a moment -- find zits unnattractive. By conceding this, he concedes that zits ar enot objectively cool. By doing that, he concedes the debate. Conclusion My opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof nor made any progress toward that end. Furthermore, he has effectively conceded the debate.