The Instigator
Nasimul
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
AlexanderOc
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Are actors and celebrities paid too much

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Nasimul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 914 times Debate No: 60830
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Nasimul

Pro

I would like to start this round with wishing my opponent good luck. I thank you for accepting this debate and hope that the best debater wins.

We will be arguing about weather or not actors are paid too much.
I take the side that actors and professional athletes are paid too much.

I hand over round one to my opponent and remind him that round one is not for starting the debate.
AlexanderOc

Con

I accept. Pro has BoP to show that Actors/Celebrities are paid more than they should be.

Debate Round No. 1
Nasimul

Pro

Are Actors, Professional Athletes, You tubers, Etc.
Paid Too Much?

Every day, from waking up to going to sleep late at night, we all see the internet stars such as Justin Bieber, One Direction, Magic Johnson, PewDiePie, etc. We all admire them and wish that one day we could be just like them. Most of us have dreamed of achieving fame as a somebody in this world. We all dreamed of untold riches. However, some of the people dreaming these dreams have no chance of earning this glory. Some people, born poor, defective, and in need of help, have also dreamed of these riches. They are the ones with a low chance of a good place in life. They dream of having a normal life, with having enough to eat, while we dream of being rich. Roughly, 50,720,000 people in America alone live under the poverty line. While celebrities have donated notable amounts of money, they have also thrown away more money in their luxuries while people lay starving on the streets. The truth is that, according to statistics, the average rich person would donate only 1.3% of his/her income. What about the rest of the money? Instead of giving more than millions of dollars yearly to celebrities (PewDiePie alone earns $8.37 million, yearly, for playing games ), the government could find better ways of spending that money. Research agencies could use at least 1 million dollars to try finding a cure for Malaria, Tuberculosis, Diarrheal Diseases, Perinatal Conditions, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, HIV/AIDS, Lower Respiratory Infections, Cerebrovascular Disease, and, last but not least, Ischemic Heart Disease. Donations over 4 million dollars could bring up the poverty line by 1%. Instead of using the money on celebrities, there could be a better world in a whole lot of ways.

How much would an average celebrity make compared to a middle class family. The average family earns about $46,326 yearly. Johnny Depp's $50 million salary last year is about 1080 times the amount that a regular family would earn. Justin Bieber earned about 55 million, while Taylor Swift bested Justin Bieber with a salary of about 57 million, yearly. Talk about being set for life. With all this money, why would a celebrity give only 1.3% of his/her income to donations? In this world, there are problems such as war, famine, diseases, poverty, crime, etc. With all that money that the celebs are taking in, wouldn't there be better ways of spending all that money? Judith Sheindlin earned about 25 million last year. Donald Trump, with a salary of 100 million, is very rich. However, that is not the richest. Oprah Winfrey took in 165 million between May 2011 and May 2012. Director Michael Bay earned about 160 million. Dr. Dre earned about 118 million, an unlikely sum that is not expected to repeat next year.Steven Spielberg earned $130 million, and Jerry Bruckheimer raked in $115 million, thanks to Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, the highest paying film of the series. All this money, and most of these people give only 1 million to charity. Statistics show that popular you tubers earn 1 -10 million yearly for making videos about pranks, playing video games, playing with toys, and criticizing others. Another person, Tyler Perry, a famous director/producer/writer/actor earned 105 million. Howard Stern earned about 95 million. James Patterson earned about 94 million. Big sums, don't you think?

One reason for lowering the money that the celebrities take in is the fact that there is no known cure to most deadly diseases. Research agencies have been trying for last 40 years to try to bring the deadly diseases into the group of diseases. Take Lung Cancer. That disease is counted as the most deadliest disease out of the whole cancer group. It"s formed by breathing in smoke from cigarettes and other herbs that people smoke. People blame others, saying that it"s not their fault that someone started to smoke. They say that if you never learn to smoke, you won't be affected by lung cancer. That"s not the truth. More than 3000 people die from secondhand smoke. This means that 3,000 people die from inhaling smoke from people that smoke cigarettes. There should be a better research agencies that could lower the effect of nicotine and help smokers that want to stop. The second disease is called Malaria. Malaria is caused by a parasite that is transmitted from one human to another through the bite of an infected mosquito. Right now, the one way of stopping these mosquitoes is to use bug spray. However, with a better disease research facility, there could be an actual cure for infected people. There are more diseases that need to be cured and there are more money needed for the budget.

Another reason for lowering the amount of money that celebs take in is the fact that one out of every 5 people ends up poor. Statistics show that the from 2000 to now, the poverty rate has decreased, but the phenomenon is the fact that the amount of people in poverty has increased by more than 5 million. Nowadays, with computers , laptops, the Internet, TV, the newest fashion, and new everything's, many people end up with having nothing to have fun with, nothing to spend time with, nothing to enjoy, nothing at all. They end up with rags, like the other 15% of America. Since they came to America, a land proclaimed to be a land of plenty, are they not falling short of what they expected. They came to America for a better life but America gave most of them a worse life. Celebrities ended up with the longer piece of the rope, and it"s time for the government to take it back. If poverty is actually cured, this land will be a land of plenty for everyone including the poor. As the classic character, Robin Hood, said, " It"s time to take from the rich, and give to the poor ."

People may say that movies and celebrities give a form of entertainment, , but do we think about those that are poor or too sick to enjoy that entertainment. People may say that being a celebrity is a huge responsibility, staying away from your family while you travel around the world. Yet, celebs earn enough to buy a private helicopter and bring their family to them. Some people say that lowering a celebs income won"t bring back anyone's pay. I say that lowering a celebs pay will solve all of Americas budget problems.People are lying on the streets, dying from hunger, while others are in hospitals, dying from diseases. There are better ways to spend our money, and there are better ways of spending Americas money.
AlexanderOc

Con

AlexanderOc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Nasimul

Pro

AlexanderOc has forfeited the previous round. To make up for that, I will not post my argument. Instead, I ask Alexander to forfeit the next round as well, so we can recreate this debate. I ask viewers not to vote for this debate.
AlexanderOc

Con

I apologize for my forfeit.
This debate ended during my school hours and I was only just finishing my argument.

I forfeit this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Nasimul 2 years ago
Nasimul
Voters, Do Not Vote for This Argument. Con and I will recreate this debate later.
Posted by Nasimul 2 years ago
Nasimul
Your the one talking. It looks like your stumped.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Patience Nasimul. Making a good argument takes time.
Someone so desperate for votes should just go noob-snipe some of the new debaters. Don't waste your time pleading for votes from newbie voters, they'll most likely get reported for vote bombing if they do vote without proper RFD.
Posted by Nasimul 2 years ago
Nasimul
Hurry up AlexanderOc.

I'm waiting.

By the way, anyone reading my comment, vote for me.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Arguments still to be presented. Hold your enthusiasm.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Oh look, Alexander is Con - 100% proof they are idiots who don't know the ugly side of reality.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
hell yeah they're overpaid, and as a result scientist and those with meaningful occupations are underpaid.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
I will not accept a debate where voters vote on who they think is correct. That makes the debate meaningless.

Voters should vote on who made better arguments and used sources the best.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
NasimulAlexanderOcTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
NasimulAlexanderOcTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: ok.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
NasimulAlexanderOcTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters appear to have agreed to null this debate and have a "do-over".