What is Undesirable May Very Well Be Appropriate

I thank CON for providing yet another clear and cogent deconstruction of this resolution.The first half of CON's rebuttal deals with the statement:"So again, going back to the definitions of desirable, the accepted definition includes the exempted portion. So while we could exclude other pleasing properties, to talk about prudent things, we cannot exclude prudent things to talk about pleasing properties as a whole, because prudence IS a pleasing property."Again, this is where the exclusion comes into play. One can easily talk about desirability excluding one specific aspect of desirability, namely prudence. I mean, this occurs all the time in various research studies...you seek to control for one element or another in order to study the subject in question. In this case, the subject in question is essentially "all elements of desirability excluding prudence". I agree with CON's logic, that absent the exclusion, all prudent things are "pleasing" and hence desirable, but as is crystal clear in the terms of acceptance of this debate, desirability simply is not about prudence in this debate. With the exclusion in mind, we simply need to ask two questions:1) Is what is undesirable and imprudent inappropriate? Most people would easily say yes, and that's not the point of this debate.2) Is what is undesirable and prudent inappropriate? IMHO the answer depends upon one's prioritization of prudence. To some, prudence has little to do with appropriateness, and those people would answer "yes" to the question. The purpose of this debate is to demonstrate why the answer is "no". I've already demonstrated this with my work-out example, which CON has yet to even begin to address.When one talks about the upper atmosphere, sure, weather is a part of that atmosphere and would naturally be a subject of discussion. However, if one talks about the upper atmosphere EXCLUDING WEATHER, then any discussion about the weather would be irrelevant to the matter at hand. Then one would talk about other things about the atmosphere...maybe ionization, maybe the damned color...anything BUT the weather. In this debate, I have discussed how the undesirability of working out is actually quite appropriate. I have thus already met burden of proof for my half of the resolution.---Perhaps the best way to demonstrate how the exclusion plays in this debate is to look at CON's syllogism:P1: If something is prudent, then prudence is a property of it. P2: Prudence is a pleasing property.P3: If something has a pleasing property, then it is desirable.C: If something is prudent, it has a pleasing property, and is therefore desirable. This is most certainly valid without the exclusion. However, considering the exclusion, the syllogism is rendered thus:P1: For the purposes of this debate, the property of prudence is outside the realm of what is desirable.P2: If something is a pleasing property, then it is desirable.C: If something is a pleasing property, then it is desirable UNLESS it is prudent, in which case it is outside the realm of what is desirable.Essentially, if something is pleasing ONLY BECAUSE it is prudent, then for the purposes of this debate it is not necessarily desirable. This was clear in the stipulations in the debate, although admittedly neither of us saw exactly how this would play out during the course of the debate.So, working out fits under this rubric. It is indeed pleasing ONLY BECAUSE it is prudent, and thus is not necessarily desirable. Is it appropriate? Yes.---Given the parameters of this debate, CON makes an erroneous assertion, that "Pro must show that something can be appropriate without having any pleasing properties." Something can easily lack pleasing properties yet still be prudent given the parameters of this debate. ConclusionWithout the exclusion, I find CON's reasoning to be completely sound. With the exclusion, I find CON's reasoning to be irrelevant to this debate.