Bald is beautiful!

"OK…here is an explanation about my separation statement." 1) That is no reason why bald is suddenly pretty. 2) We don't need to go bald to do that. 3) I would argue that by HAVING HAIR, we're already birds of a feather. By going bald, we'd instead be birds of no feathers.... basically, non-unique impact from baldness. "Uh first of all my avatar has no hair…it is a cartoon so any resemblance of hair is not even real." This was when you still had Dorothy or whoever in your profile picture. You can actually go to the profile pics section and pick the bald one.... "MY STATEMENT: "If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries.[...]Could because not everyone would be aware at first as to where the money should gowant to. But if I started campaigns such as "Go Bald for the Broke" or "Go Bald for the Babies" and encouraged the baldies to take that money and send it to the needy we could make a difference when it comes to poverty. But unlike you, I have still have some faith in the human race and think that because the bald people are so beautiful (inside that is) they will cheerfully give the money to the poor." 1) Nontopical; we're talking about if bald is beautiful or not. 2) Campaigns don't solve. As we have experienced very well by efforts to curb global warming, to stop genocide in Darfur, and other awareness movements, they don't work. There isn't any tangible solvency from not using money any more on hair products, as people would just use money on something else. 3) Faith isn't solvency either. 4) Those "some people" are already bald, therefore there would be no net benefits. "I SAY SCREW THE MEDIA!" Alright. Then we look to the argument I provided in R1, 'at that point you always vote CON because there's no way to evaluate "Bald is Beautiful" as a fact if beauty is evaluated in each of our eyes. Or, it leads to people just voting for which side of the topic they agree with rather than who does the better debating. That completely defeats the purpose of this site, as this is not Poll.com, but Debate.org.' This is true because the topic says "Bald is beautiful", and grammar dictates that he must prove the resolution categorically true, which he ISN'T, since he's conceding that some people The instant that not all people think bald is beautiful, you already negate. If he wishes to advocate that we shouldn't look to the resolution from the point of an actor to which we can all evaluate, then it becomes an impossible case to win, since he needs to prove "bald is beautiful" as a fact. Proving that some people think bald is beautiful won't work. "And a side note about movie stars: BRUCE WILLIS IS BALD BRUCE WILLIS IS BEAUTIFUL THEREFORE BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!!" Bruce Willis is not beautiful, therefore your conclusion cannot be reached. Even if he is beautiful, there is no evidence that his beauty is derived from baldness; fallacy of the undistributed middle. "OK either I can't claim impact or I do…which is it? I'm going to go with the "I can"[....]" I'm sorry that you don't understand the concept of layered arguments. You already don't get the impacts because I've refuted all your arguments. "and say that YOU can't PROVE that if it DOES save money that people will buy more things such as clothes , cars and video games. AND you can't prove that cars mean more pollution and video games lead to stupidty. (SIDE note….there are a lot of educational video games!!!)" That's fine. I'm not about to go on a brain strain to prove that more cars means more pollution and more video games leads to stupidity. That's fine. The fact of the matter is, however, you can't prove that people will donate to charity: The only justification you have is that 'I have faith in people', but that doesn't prove solvency at all, I could have faith in my brother to stop being a mentally retarded child and have faith that he's going to skip a grade, and I can have faith that Bush will score a 160 on a legit IQ test tomorrow, and I can have faith that my green plastic cup will turn red, and I can have faith that the track at my school is actually a complicated time machine, but IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. FAITH =/= SOLVENCY. While I agree that I have not proved that video games lead to stupidity and cars lead to more pollution, and I have not proved that people will not give it to charity (I CAN prove it by the way, I'm just really heavily loaded with homework), that doesn't meant that suddenly you win the argument and people WILL donate to solve world hunger. YOU have the burden of proof, not me. "I choose to be more optimistic and say that these bald people will prove that beauty is skin deep and focus more on others, and less on themselves!" Well, I choose not to. Where does this argument get us? "One of Webster's definitions of beautiful is this: having qualities of Beauty : exciting aesthetic pleasure BALD excites aesthetic pleasure in many, although I only have to prove it does this to one, which would be myself of course (and maybe Bruce Willis) therefore BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!!!" He's being conditional with the argument. While this statement here can prove the resolution "I think bald is beautiful!" is true, he cannot prove "bald is beautiful" is true due to his burden to prove it true as a categorically true statement. At the point where I can provide even one example to why that's not true, you negate the resolution. 1) Me. I can confidently say that bald women do not turn me on. 2) The media. 3) A lot of other people. I am quite aware that this is a double fallacy. None of his other arguments about world poverty even matter in the round, as they aren't proving how bald is beautiful at all, he's just trying to say that it will lead to good things. But regardless of whether or not it leads to good things, it doesn't prove why bald is beautiful. His justification in this round, as we have seen, is that HE thinks bald is beautiful and HE thinks that everyone else will too. My argument is, among other things, that if people think bald is beautiful, they would've already been bald. But apparently many people don't think is true, as they choose to keep their hair on their respective heads. Since there are so many people that disagree that bald is beautiful, you can already drop his only relevant argument to this topic.