Arguments

By: Walissa Tanaya P.

IDT, 2016

 It’s the brick wall that keeps your castle up.

 Build it strong, against ammunition (rebuttal) – fill in the holes.
 AREL.
 The last step of your case (definition, contextualization, argument) – tie them
together.
 Balance 3 aspects: philosophical justification, urgency, effects/urgency,
solvency/mechanism/goal fulfilment.
 How I case build for arguments: top-down method.

Example:

THW Ban Miss Universe

Government Case (+)

SQ: There is a Miss. Universe contest held every year. Almost every country participates. It
is a contest held for women, and it chooses one among the many to hold the title of Ms.
Universe. There is pro-contra:

- Pro: It is the pride of a country to participate, it is the dream of women all over the
world to compete and win, representing their country
- Con: It is sexist; it promotes bad values, and is focused more on appearance.

Problem:

- This controversy highlights protests against Indonesia’s participation -> spotlights the
issue. Should we participate?
- as government: see problem of Miss Universe in terms of values and effects:
o degrades women
o Harmful.

Proposal: Ban it -> Indonesia shouldn’t participate. The airing of the contest is also
prohibited in Indonesia.

Goal:

- decrease problems
 - maintain better values, protect society, especially in terms of women

Definition: The government of Indonesia should mandate that Indonesia should no longer
participate in the Miss Universe contest.

Arguments:

1. Philosophical Justification: Miss Universe degrades women

Premises: women = humans. Norm: Humans have a dignity that needs to be upheld.
They are multidimensional with intelligence, feelings, and dreams. Consequence:
So, women should not be treated like objects (not human) that are valued based on
appearance, and that can be sold or bid for. It is a violation of dignity.
Argument:
a. Assertion: Miss Universe violates this dignity, therefore unjustified -> it
degrades women by objectifying them and treating them like a commodity.
b. Reasoning: the nature of the contest. Objectify -> women are valued mostly
based on appearance. Commodity -> the contest aims to be commercial;
women are objects to be sold.
c. Evidence: The judging process, although claiming to be based on 3B’s (brain
beauty, behavior), isn’t so. It is 80% beauty, judging based on the focus and
airtime of appearance-based aspects (evening gown session, swimsuit
session, beauty qualifications, etc.) The “brain” aspects only allow about 90s
per contestant to answer simple questions a high-school-er can answer, e.g.
what do you think about drugs? Plus, during the contest, gamble sites are
open to bet on the winner. It made $2billion in 2006.
d. Link back: so, because of the objectifying content which defines the purpose
of the contest, and how it treats women like commodity, this contest should
be banned.

2. Negative effects: It causes mental and physical harm

Premises: Fact: it focuses on beauty, has insane standards on weight, height, etc. It
becomes a promoted standard of beauty. Consequence: women who want to join,
or imitate these beauty icons do anything to match these criteria, e.g. diet,
unnecessary plastic surgery, etc. Effect: Mental and physical harm -> depression,
anorexia, bulimia.
Argument:
a. Assertion: It harms women, both mentally and physically
 b. Reasoning: Women want to comply with these insane standards of beauty*, e.g.
low weight, tall height, fair skin, slim body. Methods: surgery, unhealthy diets.
Failure causes depression, self-hatred/loathing.
c. Evidence: Various plastic surgery failures, bulimic/anorexic models, suicides
because of failure or bullying towards women who do not comply with these
standards.
d. Link-back: The horrifying negative effects inherently created by the contest
makes it urgent to stop it by any means, including banning.

3. Solvency: Why banning is an effective way to stop the degradation

Premises: Problem: women are being degraded in the media. Miss Universe
contributes. Characterization: It displays women as objects and commodity through
TV, internet that millions watch and participate in every year. Solution: stop that kind
of media from operating. Stop it being held and shown to people -> BAN!
Argument:
a. Assertion: Banning will minimize people participating and watching this
degradation of women’s dignity.
b. Reasoning: When the government ban’s something*, it officially puts an end
towards the operation of that thing. In this case, if the government of Indonesia
bans the participation and airing of that contest in Indonesia, it minimizes the
exposure in the Indonesian media. It also sends a message that Indonesia
rejects the contest and the values it promotes.*
c. Evidence: The government bans commercials and films that contain hateful
content in terms of SARA, e.g. the Video that insulted Rasulullah SAW. ->
minimizes exposure in Indonesia. Also showed Indonesia’s stance towards the
hateful content and Indonesians do not make these kinds of videos to be shown
to the public.
d. Link-back: Because it will minimize the exposure, thus minimizing people from
viewing the degradation of women, and it also sends a message about the
government’s stance towards the issue, this contest should be banned.

* can be potential arguments; explain more by other speakers.