13 year olds should be allowed to compete in X Factor NZ
Debate Rounds (4)
On behalf of all those talented 13year olds, I believe 13 year olds should be allowed to compete in X Factor NZ.
Firstly, many ex-13year olds say that we are not "mature enough".This is a major understatement. And I'm sure all fans of Carly Rose Sonenclar AKA Carly's angels will agree:
I accept the con side of the argument!
I define should as and auxiliary verb used to express obligation or duty. Prefer my definition because it is taken from a public source and eliminates author bias.
The con interprets the resolution as indicating the show "X Factor" (or at least the executive board of it) has an expected obligation or duty to allow people 13 years of age to compete.
A pro burden of proof is assumed because the pro is trying to prove his or her own position. If the pro does not, it is assumed that the pro can not. This scenario results in an automatic con victory.
Good luck and have fun! :)
I believe 13 year olds have the ability to sing on X Factor, and possibly win.
Firstly, for many 13 year old children the confidince to sing in front of 1000+ is no problem.
Secondly, a very good example of a amazing 13 year old singer has been stated, why not in NZ?
Rebuttal: (BTW I'm calling you a she because your profile picture is of a woman, correct me if I'm wrong, if you would ^^;;)
The pro states that 13-year olds are able to perform in front of a large audience. She then implies that, because they can perform, they should perform, although she does not explicitly say so herself. People everyday have the ability to kill, steal, conspire, and rape but, clearly, people should not. Her assumption that, because they can, they should ("why not in NZ), does not stand.
At this point in time, the pro's case does not stand. Because the pro has the BoP (Burden of Proof), the con is, at this point, winning the debate.
The value to be upheld is morality.
Continuing on, shows such as the X-Factor do not have a moral obligation (coming from my previously stated definition of "should") to allow adolescents to compete in their respective shows. TV shows are a business with a business plan, goals, and a minimum rating they must reach to continue to remain on the air. TV IS A BUSINESS. (http://abovethecrowd.com...) More like a mathematics-based business plan than an art medium, TV content must be marketable a business efficient. Take the TV show Fear Factor as an example. A thrilling, heart-pumping TV show that seemingly enchants its audience. Here's the catch: you have to be at least 18 years of age to even apply. (http://www.fearfactorcasting.com...) But why? The answer's simple, nobody wants to watch a child try to succeed in a course designed for adults. Additionally, nobody wants to go through the extra paperwork. The same is true for the X-Factor. Auditions occupy countless more hours than the viewer can see and just 100 less auditions can save alot of money and strife, both for the contestants and judges. But regardless of reason, we can all see that Fear Factor doesn't have an obligation to let anyone on their show, it's simply advisable to do so. The X Factor also has no obligation to do anything for anyone, really.
For all the said reasons, please vote for a con ballot.
Therefore I rest my case
The pro's only argument against my original claims was that people "There are MANY 12+famous singers who are a HUGE influence to others EG. Carly Rose, Willow Smith etc".
Firstly, the pro is attempting to prove causation with correlation. Simply stating that there are young people that are famous and have influence doesn't have any impact as to why the X Factor has an obligation to allow these people on their show. The pro has the burden of proof when showing that allowing said teenagers to participate in the X Factor is actually economically viable for the show.
Secondly, even if the pro succeeds in showing that teenagers on the X Factor is economically viable, the pro ignores the main point of my argument. The TV show is a business. As a business, the show has the unique ability to cater to whom it chooses. Saying that the X Factor should allow 13 year olds is like saying that they should also allow people of all ages as well. Further, saying that the X Factor should allow 13 years olds to participate is like saying that shows like One Man Army should allow children to participate, just because they can. ()
BriarMarie forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.