I have a rather eccentric friend who often changes the style of his facial hair quite frequently. One week he will be clean shaven, the next he will have a beard and the next a moustache, and so on. He finds it amusing to switch it up and he calls it "keeping things fresh". Well, last week he emailed me and some other friends a photograph of his newest facial hair style. This time he had chosen the Goatee and was looking for feedback on the subject. Should he keep it or not? It wasn't long before an all out argument broke out about whether or not he should keep the goatee.
Group A was in favor. They all agreed that the goatee was "fashionable" and gave the wearer a certain "no nonsense air about him "that demanded the respect of anyone who may have seen him with it. They argued that the goatee has been around for hundreds of years and if it would please the wearer, then he should keep it. They all also agreed that the goatee added a few years to his face, so rather than looking like a 23 year old, they thought he looked more like a 25 year old.
Group B thought quite the opposite. They argued that the goatee made him look "old fashioned" and "out of style". They said the goatee was most popular in the 1990's and that it should stay there. In addition to all this, they had a personal distaste for the goatee and thought it was just plain "ugly".
I'm finding it quite difficult to really determine who has a better argument here. On one hand, I suppose one group has more evidence than the other and that, in turn, would win the argument. On the other, it seems like the personal preference of any man or woman should be what wins the argument. However, if I were to decide who was more convincing in this debate, I suppose I would side with Group A. Their evidence had real substance to it, i.e. it is a look that has been around a long time, and also it had less to do with personal preference than Group B.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Found Argument: NFL.
"Thank God for College football season. What would we do with out it, because the NFL sucks" - Josh
Tonight I was sitting at a bar with a couple of my friends and the sportscaster on TV started talking about the opening games of the college football season. My friend Josh really cares about sports. I do not. Josh made the above statement and then went on to talk for about ten minutes about how the NFL is a "bunch of thugs" and if you want to see real athleticism and true competition you have to ignore the NFL and go with college football. In general, Josh believe that professional sports are full of "showboats and [expletive] primadonnas" and that you have to look to the younger athletes to see anyone who is not so corrupt by money and greed that they haven't lost the real love of the game. Since Josh is a true sports fan - he loves to watch, play, and follow the stats of almost every type of sport, he is most concerned with the athletic and competetive aspects of football viewing.
I think that Josh's argument is valid but that it ignores a whole other part of the discussion about why people might chose to watch the NFL instead of college teams. If everybody watched football on tv because they love the game, they love watching skilled players play with passion, and they value competition and sportsmanship, it would be okay for him to conclude that the "NFL sucks." But not everyone is like Josh and he does not take into account that people watch professional sports teams for lots of reasons. Many people didn't go to college and therefore don't have any obvious ties to college or university teams. Also, many people watch professional sports teams because of emotional ties from childhood, because an influential family member was a fan, or because they look up to a member of the team after hearing them speak. Furthermore, a lot of people become fans of both professional and college teams for social reasons - they go to games or watch games because it's a way to hang out with friends and be part of something bigger than themselves...or because they want to drink. So in conclusion, while I agree with Josh that college football is probably the route to go if you really care about football in and of itself, I think that it's an overstatement to say that the "NFL sucks" and has no entertainment value.
Found Argument: iPad.
Recently, I came across a discussion on a friends facebook page about Apple's handy device, the iPad. His status was as follows:
"Just saw a listing on ebay for a 2nd Gen iPad with a cracked screen, dented case with broken buttons. $449. Really? What a joke."
After the original post, another person chimed in that it was a "good deal" and this started a rather lengthy discussion about why and why not the $449 was a good deal. The authors main point is quite clear and stated plainly. He has a problem with someone charging so much for an obviously faulty piece of equipment. While he does not go into much detail, the source of his displeasure can easily be understood. The author sees the device as being outdated and as I already mentioned, faulty, and a price tag of just $50 dollars less than a brand new iPad makes the deal not so grand in his eyes. However, the person who argued the point came to a conclusion quite different than the original author. His argument was that while the iPad was still very near the brand new price and had some technical issues that needed to be worked out, you would still be getting a good deal.
These types of arguments have a way of never really having a conclusion as the people who are involved in them are quite stubborn and tend to not give up. As an objective bystander, I found myself agreeing with the side of the original author. His points were much stronger if we take a more detailed look at them. $50 dollars cheaper than brand new asking price is not much, especially when you consider the aesthetic condition of the iPad. If the iPad were brand new with no cracked screen or broken buttons, you would basically be getting a new iPad for less than list price. This was not the case in this specific situation. Were you to purchase this used iPad, you would have a few problems to work through before you would be able to use it as a new iPad.
"Just saw a listing on ebay for a 2nd Gen iPad with a cracked screen, dented case with broken buttons. $449. Really? What a joke."
After the original post, another person chimed in that it was a "good deal" and this started a rather lengthy discussion about why and why not the $449 was a good deal. The authors main point is quite clear and stated plainly. He has a problem with someone charging so much for an obviously faulty piece of equipment. While he does not go into much detail, the source of his displeasure can easily be understood. The author sees the device as being outdated and as I already mentioned, faulty, and a price tag of just $50 dollars less than a brand new iPad makes the deal not so grand in his eyes. However, the person who argued the point came to a conclusion quite different than the original author. His argument was that while the iPad was still very near the brand new price and had some technical issues that needed to be worked out, you would still be getting a good deal.
These types of arguments have a way of never really having a conclusion as the people who are involved in them are quite stubborn and tend to not give up. As an objective bystander, I found myself agreeing with the side of the original author. His points were much stronger if we take a more detailed look at them. $50 dollars cheaper than brand new asking price is not much, especially when you consider the aesthetic condition of the iPad. If the iPad were brand new with no cracked screen or broken buttons, you would basically be getting a new iPad for less than list price. This was not the case in this specific situation. Were you to purchase this used iPad, you would have a few problems to work through before you would be able to use it as a new iPad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)