Raymond Angelo is the Exoticoption.

Saturday, January 13, 2007

An Aside on Good Looks and Effort

The Arena seemed like a good idea on paper, but its execution and lack of quality fails it.

Let's start with the rules; SCREW THE RULES. I thought the format itself was innovative, but god, the POI system was the pits. The POI-er, to raise a POI, had to press a buzzer. If the POI-ee chose to accept it, he presses another buzzer. But nope, that went out of the window from the get-go. As such, speaker's speeches were constantly interrupted by the POIs. POIs are good and all, but, TECHNICALLY (ahem), it shouldn't be used to derail someone's train of thoughts.

The result? Unfinished speeches and incoherent points. Gah.

And the host was horrible. It seemed so stilted; he's speech and "jokes". Its especially noticeable when he cracks a one-liner, and it resonates because nobody's laughing.

They wore "costumes" too. Did anybody notice the gloves on the Raffles guys? Makes debate almost seem hip. Dawg.

Ohs wells.

The motion was the typical Looks VS Effort debate. Loyang had Looks (not literally), and Raffles had Effort (in my opinion, they could have used with more).

The speakers were of OK standard, at least, most of them were. The 1st speaker for Raffles had no balls; no POIs, and seemed intimated all the time. But I guess that's to be expected.

Don't get me started on Loyang's second speaker. What the christ were they thinking when they put her on national television? I won't critisize based on looks; but the behaviour on stage was...let's just say I felt my skin burn in shame. I WANT DECORUM TO BE OBSERVED IN THIS HOUSE! Nabei. She act damn gung-ho and ah-lian-ish on stage man. Like...Want-to-fight-want-to-fight-like that. Cheesepie. She exaggerated every single point, but at the same time, oversimplified it, as if the person she's talking to was born yesterday.

And that "When-I-was-a-baby" thing was the least cute thing I've ever seen. Ever. Props to the Raffle's second speaker for the "How credible is your Mummy" line. Brilliant.

At the end of the day though, it all boils down on points.

Loyang based their argument on the fact that people are shallow; people judge based on good looks. I agree with this; like I've said, you've got to wade the shallows before you can reach the depth of the oceans. Thus, because of the shallow-ness, good looking people are given more opportunities.
But does getting more opportunities mean succeeding? Even if you get the opportunity, it is the effort you put in that lets you get what you want.

And on good-looking sports people who get lots of endorsements.
Is it really considered "triumph" when they succeed, not in the field they chose to specialise in, but based on their looks alone? Very often, as sportsmen, they train hard. When they get lots of endorsements based on looks alone, their talent and their training is often ignored. How will you like it when you've practiced for so hard, yet...it all goes to waste?
Is that really considered a "triumph"?

It maybe true that goodlooking people can get certain opportunities. However, this again can be argued upon. It all depends on the situation: for instance, if you're boss is a horny-ass pervert, then you may get the job. But if you're boss is a woman who's afraid of good-looking competition, then sayonara to you.

Though, like Loyang said, there are occasions where good looks won (the US Presidency), I'm sure if we look hard enough, we'll find occasions where good looks were discriminated against. But I'm just too lazy to look.

I agree with Raffle's points on good-looks coming with their own stereotypes. They are seen as being able to just flow through life easily; and as such, certain people may choose to give the chance to others.

"If two people put in the same effort, then the more good looking one would win." I don't think it's as simple as that; so many factors play in: race; experience; achievements. And just like in that statement, if two people are just as good looking as the other, then the one which puts in more effort would win, no?

At the end of the day, I just wish to say that good looks is just one positive god bestows upon some of us. If we look hard enough, there's a plus side to everybody; I can easily substitute "Good looks" with "intelligence", or "race"...

Just accept that everybody's different and at the end of the day, the one which puts in more effort and has more BURNING COURAGE should win.

I've been able to rebutt Loyang quite soundly, I think. But Raffles didn't do such a good job, so I guess that's why they loss.

But by my judgement, victory goes to Raffles. Just because they don't have that butch in their team :)

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Locations of visitors to this page Free Web Counter
Free Web Counter