For women, it's better to be average-looking than exceptionally beautiful

I will now deconstruct her argument, then present my own. Keep in mind, though, that the BOP is on her to prove the resolution true. My only job is to prove her wrong, meaning that all I really have to do is refute her arguments (not using this to get out of making my own case, but it does give me multiple ways to win). Point 1.1Here my opponent is trying to say that all attractive women gather in douchebags by the truck-load, thus it's better to be not-so attractive. Her warrant for this? One random examples and a bunch of following assumptions. There's no actual evidence being provided by my opponent as to why ALL attractive women, as she is claiming, draw in jerks even if they don't want to. Since there's no actual warrant to this, I see no reason to weigh it in the round. But secondly, this at best is a minor inconvenience. If a woman gets approached by a man whom she does not want to talk to, she simply can just walk away or tell him to go away. We men may be pretty stupid sometimes, but we can pick up fairly obvious hints, like a woman yelling "Get the f*ck away from me! " meaning that we should probably back off. There are a few exceptions, of course, but the vast majority of us do. The benefits of being beautiful (as I will go over in my case) far outweigh this minor inconvenience. But thirdly, you're basing this objection off of subjective preference of your men. There are some women who DO like to be approached like that, and appreciate outgoing guys who like to take risks like that. To just lump all women into a super-conservative nature like that and reject any guys that try to talk to them when they're with their friends is a far-too-hasty assumption. For some women, the case you describe might actually be a benefit to them, as it allows them to meet more guys, which could increase their chances of finding their potential husband. Point 1.2My opponent establishes a situation where a guy completely wrecks a girl's life and the girl blames herself. Point taken, some guys can be pricks. To take that scenario and say that ALL guys are pricks and that ALL attractive females with boyfriends hate their relationship and that ALL guys who date attractive girls are sociopaths is far too hasty of an assumption to make with no actual proof to back it up with. Moreover, there are also plenty of GREAT guys who date attractive females, and those females don't have problems with their relationships. I know quite a few head-turningly beautiful girls who have boyfriends and they are completely smitten with eachother and everything is going quite well. If we just base this debate off of who knows more good relationships or bad relationships, then we're not actually debating, but rather swapping sob/success stories. No thanks. Point 2This is where my opponent may make her most convincing argument, but even this one is lacking in actual validity. Let's disect it:My opponent starts by saying that beautiful women get more advantages coming out of college and into the work-place. How this is a bad thing is beyond me, if anything they're added benefits and work toward my favor instead of her own. But continuing on, she claims that beautiful women start to think that it's only their beauty that's getting them by. This shocking new revelation is female psychology is one I never knew my opponent was qualified to make without any sort of secondary proof to validate her claims. But furthermore, there's nothing wrong with what my opponent is claiming. While it's true that if you can get into well-paying jobs by using your wit and intelligence, that's all the better. But if you have beauty in bucket-loads, and you know it works for you, why not take advantage of it to cover up some weak areas of yours? My opponent just makes the assumption that it's a horrible thing for someone to do, but she never really explains why it is. If beauty helps one get ahead in life, then why not is my question? My opponent continues on to say that men don't like it when women take power over them, with, again, no actual proof to back up her claims. There are plenty of men who like to be the stay-at-home dad while mom goes out and is the bread-winner. There are also plenty of submissive guys who prefer the women to wear the pants in the relationship. To say that ALL men like to be in control with no actual proof is fallacious. But furthermore, even if she is right about that, my opponent makes the assumption about women being submissive is bad. But this also isn't true for all women, as there are plenty of women who are submissive, or do like to be the stay-at-home mom while daddy goes and earns the money. I may sound like a broken record with all the claims of my opponent not providing any proof, but my opponent must provide actual warrant for her arguments to have any chance of standing in a formal debate. She then goes on to say that women who value their appearance more will spend more money on their looks instead of on other things (a valid assumption), but then claims that it's bad with no actual warrant. Why is it bad to spend money on maintaining beauty? If I want to be beautiful, why is it wrong for me to spend money on cosmedics or other methods of becoming more attractive? Overall, my opponent presents no real compelling arguments that can stand against the heat of cross-examination. So let's now take a look at the benefits of being beautiful. Argument 1: More Beauty, More MoneyWhenever people are more attractive, society tends to think that they do better at what they do than compared to someone who isn't as attractive. 58% of women who were attractive received high ratings for their work compared to 41% of average looking females and 23% of bad looking females(1). These better performance ratings lead to higher income rates. Attractive people tend to earn 3 to 4% more money from jobs than average people do(1), which can be anywhere around $230,000 more(1). People who are beautiful tend to just do better in the workplace. As Heather Hunman of Business Insider says: "There have been many studies that demonstrate that people who are more attractive are more successful when it comes to business. This means not only in job interviews, but also in the workplace. "(1). Argument 2: Miscellaneous PerksAside from getting advantages in the workplace, there are other benefits to being beautiful. A study conducted by Harvard Psychologist Dr. Nancy Etcoff concluded that women who were attractive get more fuss from mothers when they are babies, receive more commendations from teachers as intelligent and sociable, more leniance from police officers, jurors, and judges, and are more likely to receive help from strangers if they're broken down on the side of the road(2). While not nearly as major as the massive economic perks, they still give critical advantages to those who are beautiful, as compared to those who aren't as such. Argument 3: Rakin' in the HappinessWhile all these perks I've described are good and all, what does any of it matter if you're not happy? Too late, economists at UT-Austin as well as other foreign universities concluded that beautiful people are generally happier than average or not-so-attractive people(3). The correlating factor, as they found, was based mostly off of their economic successes and advantages. Because my opponent fails to present a compelling argument, and I'm providing clear-cut statistics and evidence for my side, I urge you to negate the resolution. I pass the floor to my opponent at this point and wish her the best of luck with the rest of the debate. Sources:(1) - . http://articles.businessinsider.com...(2) - . http://news.bbc.co.uk...(3) - . http://yourlife.usatoday.com...;