The Instigator
Elsafatima
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
5thInternationalist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Are films the only need for entertainment

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2013 Category: Movies
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,396 times Debate No: 37349
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Elsafatima

Con

Films are not only about entertainment it gives much more values and moral.
5thInternationalist

Pro

I accept the challenge but pose the argument that films give much more than "values" and "morals". Rather it will be my contention that films, like any medium of art, have to function as a mirror to the society within which it has been produced.
Debate Round No. 1
Elsafatima

Con

Elsafatima forfeited this round.
5thInternationalist

Pro

If you read my post clearly, you'll see that I saw the question posed, however ill expressed, as being "Is entertainment value the only value motion pictures provide?" And I gave a clear answer to that question. Pro asserted that films provided moral value, not just entertainment value. In a sense, that is correct. All films to some degree expounds their own principles of moral values. But my contention is that films, like any medium of art, has even more to provide than either entertainment or morality, that they serve to "function as a mirror to the society within which it has been produced". And no. That is not the same as "movies also reflect the culture of those making the given motion picture". So our positions are not even close to identical.

But does that mean we are totally opposite? No, and it doesn't have to be that way. I've have debates taken place between people whose positions were never totally opposed, but were rather neighbors. Its fine and possible. Maybe we (me and you) should debate, considering my opponent here forfeited the first round.
Debate Round No. 2
Elsafatima

Con

Elsafatima forfeited this round.
5thInternationalist

Pro

5thInternationalist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Elsafatima

Con

Elsafatima forfeited this round.
5thInternationalist

Pro

5thInternationalist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Elsafatima

Con

Elsafatima forfeited this round.
5thInternationalist

Pro

5thInternationalist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by 5thInternationalist 3 years ago
5thInternationalist
If you read my post clearly, you'll see that I saw the question posed, however ill expressed, as being "Is entertainment value the only value motion pictures provide?" And I gave a clear answer to that question. Pro asserted that films provided moral value, not just entertainment value. In a sense, that is correct. All films to some degree expounds their own principles of moral values. But my contention is that films, like any medium of art, has even more to provide than either entertainment or morality, that they serve to "function as a mirror to the society within which it has been produced". And no. That is not the same as "movies also reflect the culture of those making the given motion picture". So our positions are not even close to identical.

But does that mean we are totally opposite? No, and it doesn't have to be that way. I've have debates taken place between people whose positions were never totally opposed, but were rather neighbors. Its fine and possible. Maybe we (me and you) should debate, considering my opponent here forfeited the first round.
Posted by 5thInternationalist 3 years ago
5thInternationalist
If you read my post clearly, you'll see that I saw the question posed, however ill expressed, as being "Is entertainment value the only value motion pictures provide?" And I gave a clear answer to that question. Pro asserted that films provided moral value, not just entertainment value. In a sense, that is correct. All films to some degree expounds their own principles of moral values. But my contention is that films, like any medium of art, has even more to provide than either entertainment or morality, that they serve to "function as a mirror to the society within which it has been produced". And no. That is not the same as "movies also reflect the culture of those making the given motion picture". So our positions are not even close to identical.

But does that mean we are totally opposite? No, and it doesn't have to be that way. I've have debates taken place between people whose positions were never totally opposed, but were rather neighbors. Its fine and possible. Maybe we (me and you) should debate, considering my opponent here forfeited the first round.
Posted by MGmirkin 3 years ago
MGmirkin
This debate is ill-defined, and the topical question is ungrammatical, rendering it pretty useless. How can we debate if we don't even know what we're debating? What EXACTLY *is* being debated here?

Using typical English grammatical parsing, I take the meaning of the titular question to be "In order to be entertained, are films the only requirement?" That is, are films the only entertaining thing out there. Are they the only thing you need in order to be entertained?

However, I think that what the asker MEANT was more along the lines of "Is entertainment value the only value motion pictures provide?" If so, it seems like the pro and con positions have not been well-defined with respect to the question itself.

Con has taken the position that films provide moral guidance (on assumes, in addition to entertainment value). Pro seems to have taken a nearly identical position that in addition to moral guidance movies also reflect the culture of those making the given motion picture.

These don't quite seem to be polar opposite position WRT the titular question, which is not itself well enough defined...
No votes have been placed for this debate.