Matt Ought to Take his shirt off publicly

Thanks again to Zaradi! This is gonna be fun :)OBSERVATIONThis is just wrong. In a normative resolution, the BOP is shared. In fact-claims, it is unfair on Con to give him the BOP, because he cannot disprove a fact (you cannot disprove that dragons exist because one could always be hiding out there somewhere). But, that is not the case in a normative resolutions (a "should" or "ought" question.) It is possible to disprove that "one ought to murder murderers," by presenting and defending an alternative framework, such as pacifism. Therefore, there is no reason why, in a resolution like this, I should bear the sole BOP. So, the mere fact that I am making a positive assertion tells us nothing as to who should have the BOP.As for Zaradi's idea that people just don't do things without reason, that can be flipped back on him. When confronted with a choice, people also don't "not do things" without reason.MY CASEC1. Reducing SufferingFirstly, Zaradi tries to rebut this contention essentially by out-impacting me. For him to do this successfully, he needs to show that his alternatives are exclusive to him. For instance, suppose I said, I can reduce suffering by handing my friend a cool beverage. Then, someone walks up to me and says, "you shouldn't have done that...there are better ways to prevent suffering, like donating to a food bank." I can make a pretty obvious retort, "well, I can give my friend a pepsi AND donate to a food bank." Doing both obviously solves for suffering better than doing just one. Therefore, for Zaradi to effectively out-impact me, he needs to have unique/exclusive alternative, because if their not unique/exclusive, I can do them too in my world.Zaradi gives me 3 alternatives: (1) doing his job as VP/working for the site and (2) porn is superior to his barechestedness. Neither of these alternatives meet the exclusivity standard. He can work as VP/for the site AND still take his shirt off. Other people can enjoy porn AND enjoy Matt's shirtlessness. By removing his shirt, we can still get the benefits of these alternatives and Matt's shirtlessness. It's like giving the pepsi and donating to the foodbank; two is better than one.On a sidenote, Zaradi tries to say that his exposing himself won't be as good as porn; but there is zero reason to believe this. People might actually find him being shirtless better, because they know him. He's not some faceless stranger. There is a potential emotional connection as well as a physical one, which could make it more satisfying than regular porn.performance?Secondly, Zaradi attempts to turn my case, but this turn doesn't even get out of the starting gate. People have set a goal (getting Zaradi shirtless) and if we fail at that goal, there is an increased risk of suffering: "In a cross-sectional study, we examined the interactive effects of rumination (versus reflection) and failure to attain promotion goals on depressive symptoms. As predicted, greater levels of promotion goal failure were associated with having more depressive symptoms for individuals who engage in moderate to high levels of rumination." [1] Promotional goals "are hopes, dreams, and desires." [2] As I said last round: should a soccer team put in hours of training but fail to attain any victories, they may become discouraged, and disband rather than continue. Achieving goals is also satisfying. I may only achieve a goal once, but failing to achieve one goal doesn't stop me caring, it makes me proud that I achieved it. Plus, seeing someone shirtless is the kind of goal you can continually strive for. I can always hope to see him shirtless a second time.C2. Zaradi Owes MeFirstly, Zaradi tries to turn this saying it's blackmail and unfair. Right, so this obviously isn't blackmail. Let me define blackmail: "he crime of threatening to tell secret information about someone unless the person being threatened gives you money or does what you want." [3] I am not threatening Zaradi with anything. I am simply saying he ought to do X because he owes me Y. If he doesn't comply, there is no harm that's going to come to him.Secondly, Zaradi says my demanding an alternate reward demeans tournaments in general. But, Zaradi's warrant here is extremely tenuous. Why does him appearing shirtless necessarily "mock" the tournament. If anything, him giving me a reward strengthens tournaments by demonstrating the winners will get their prizes if prizes were promised. The nature of the prize doesn't seem relevant, insofar as I seriously doubt many DDOians will care.Finally, Zaradi says $50 is not equivalent to him shirtless, and that he's willing to send me the money. Yet, he seems to have missed what I said last round: I cannot have stuff sent to my address because my family might see it. That would pose a variety of problems for me which I can detail if necessary. Suffice it to say, giving him my address is not feasible. So, there's no way I can get $50 from him, which was what was promised. That is why I am owed something of comparable value than I can actually receive. Taking off his shirt costs Matt almost nothing, just a few minutes of his time and a calorie worth of energy to remove his shirt. Surely, under any fair assessment, that is worth at least $50 if not less. Debts ought to be repaid, and Zaradi needs to repay this one.C3. Community-BuildingFirstly, and yet again, Zaradi attempts to out-impact me. But, cross-apply my analysis from C1. His arguments here must be unique/exclusive. None of the alternatives he gives are exclusive.Secondly, sure, not everyone may want to see him shirtless. But they could easily be informed beforehand, so that they wouldn't be in the hangout at the time. And even if pictures were made available, DDO is a big site, and it's likely that anyone who truly wanted to avoid the images could do so, or would not be significantly irked by them.Thirdly, the resolution reads: "Matt ought to remove his shirt publicly in a Google Hangout session with members of DDO present." Absolutely nothing about that resolution prevents users in the hangout from screenshoting Matt shirtless. This disproves his claim that "[t]his further excludes community participation" because those outside the hangout can still see what transpired.C4. Zaradi Wants More LoveFirstly, so, you're saying you don't want more love? Based on the way you react when people ask you to take your shirt off, it seems like you like it. People can judge for themselves, though. [4, 5] You DEFINITELY want more love, man.Secondly, "love" can mean attention, encouragement, etc. just as much as it can mean romantic entanglement, so Matt's argument really doesn't do what he wants it to do. People can always uses more love.Thirdly, Zaradi talks about his girlfriend. Turn this. She wrote: "*Chant* Take it off! take it off! :D." I think she would affirm this topic, not negate it. C5. SexinessAll Zaradi says is "Nah man. Not even." This does nothing to explain why he shouldn't display his sexiness to everyone. CON's CASEC1. RapeFirstly, I think Zaradi is mixing up his definitions again. Allow me to define rape: "to force (someone) to have sex with you by using violence or the threat of violence." [3] I am NOT attempting to have Zaradi have sex with anyone. So, this is not rape, and so there is no reason to believe that the harms of rape would apply here. Plus--and I mean, seriously--taking his shirt off is not going to generate those harms; voters know Zaradi, and they know the circumstances, and they know those impacts are bunk.Secondly, Zaradi is playing hard to get. Look at the video and just witness his reaction [4, 5]. Moreover, he's taken his shirt off before in hangouts in front of gay men. Clearly, he doesn't object to this in principle, so why is this situation significantly different? Zaradi doesn't really object, he just likes torturing us all and making us work for it, which is promoting suffering and frustration.C2. ProfessionalismFirstly, we're not trying to see Zaradi naked. I mean, I wouldn't object, but seeing him naked is outside the scope of the resolution. Zaradi never explains why seeing people shirtless has the same negative impact on professionalism. There are a few reasons why I don't think it would have a deleterious impact on his professional image. If someone showed up to an office shirtless, that would be highly unprofessional. But in social settings, that would not have the same effect. It is not just about what is done, but where it's done. Since Zaradi would be doing this in a generally social setting, there is reason to believe people wouldn't associate it with his professional persona. Empirics also support this conclusion. Consider, I could see someone on the beach shirtless, but still take them perfectly seriously at work. I would also suggest, that people know Zaradi, and will take him seriously because of who he is, not because of a single humorous (and hot) incident. Mayors of cities make silly bets with each other all the time, and do silly stuff when they lose. Yet, their still take seriously because people understand the need for fun, even in a professional setting, and they know the person involved and their normal demeanor and work ethic.Secondly, turn this contention. If we value professionalism or public image, then Zaradi has to keep his debt to me. If he doesn't, he acts in a way that would generally be regarded as unprofessional (failing to repay a legitimate debt). It would, for instance, be unprofessional and/or bad for their image for a politician to fail to pay back their student debt. The same applies here.SOURCES1 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...2 - http://www.goodtherapy.org...3 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...4 - Source 1, R15 - http://www.debate.org...Thanks, Zaradi! This is hysterical, lol...Over to you...