The Instigator
AlyHo11
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
orangemayhem
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Carly Rose Sonenclar Should've Won X Factor Season 2

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: 4/24/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,824 times Debate No: 32897
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

AlyHo11

Pro

Carly was only 13 when she walked out on the X Factor stage. She was shy, but she sung like a total pro! I mean, her voice was so much more mature than a 13-year-old's. It was more like a full grown professional adult singing, every time!

It was completely unfair that Tate Stevens won. He just got the pity vote because he might not have a job after the show. Well, um, you kind of would have a job when you were in the X Factor's top 3! Hello! Even third place winners, Fifth Harmony, was quickly signed to a record label. Of course Tate would've had a job! And the X Factor is a show about good singers, not sad stories.

Carly would've won if they had gone on one more week. The Fifth Harmony fans would have voted for Carly. It is simply insane that Carly, a 13-year-old of extreme and rare talent, lost to a 40-year-old country singers. What is it with country singers winning EVERYTHING nowadays, anyway???

I look forward to our debate. Hopefully someone will step up soon.
P.S. I am twelve. But it won't be as easy as you think to beat me.
orangemayhem

Con

I have already expressed, in the Comments section, my feelings about the fact that this debate is inherently flawed because the Proposition is essentially arguing "regardless of what the people thought, Carly Rose Sonenclar should've been crowned the winner anyway". This would make this debate very interesting indeed, as we would be arguing about the very nature of talent shows themselves. But, conversely, I see this as a debate about the ends justifying the means.

My opponent has not provided a structure for this debate, given out BOP, or given any definitions. I have done so below. I look forward to this debate.

P.S: I am sixteen. But believe me, I don't go down easily.

-----

Definitions
"should've won The X Factor season 2." - I am choosing to define this as such: my opponent is arguing that it would have been better for the world, and for Sonenclar's career, if she had won the second series of the US version of the British franchise The X Factor. She had the burden of proof here. I, conversely, will argue that it was better for her career and for the world that she did not win.

Structure of the Debate
The debate will be structured as so:
Round I: Acceptance, opening statements and definitions.
Round II: Elaborate upon opening statements, rebuttal.
Round III: Rebuttal and summing up.

----

Opening Statement for the Opposition
We will seek to establish several things during this debate. We will establish that, regardless of what one thinks of Sonenclar, Stevens or the X Factor franchise, the result declared in December should be upheld. We will argue that, even if one is a fan of Sonenclar, it is better for her not to have won the show, and we will use examples from the UK version of the programme (of which there have been nine seasons) to demonstrate this. Finally, we will defend Tate Stevens, who has been the subject of a torrent of unwarranted abuse from the Proposition.

That's my opening statement. In line with the structure of the debate I invite Proposition to elaborate on their opening statement and rebutt mine should they wish.
Debate Round No. 1
AlyHo11

Pro

Carly was only 13 when she walked out on the X Factor stage. She was shy, but she sung like a total pro! I mean, her voice was so much more mature than a 13-year-old's. It was more like a full grown professional adult singing, every time!

It was completely unfair that Tate Stevens won. He just got the pity vote because he might not have a job after the show. Well, um, you kind of would have a job when you were in the X Factor's top 3! Hello! Even third place winners, Fifth Harmony, was quickly signed to a record label. Of course Tate would've had a job! And the X Factor is a show about good singers, not sad stories.

Carly would've won if they had gone on one more week. The Fifth Harmony fans would have voted for Carly. It is simply insane that Carly, a 13-year-old of extreme and rare talent, lost to a 40-year-old country singers. What is it with country singers winning EVERYTHING nowadays, anyway???

I look forward to our debate. Hopefully someone will step up soon.
P.S. I am twelve. But it won't be as easy as you think to beat me.

Well
orangemayhem

Con

Opening and structure
Judging from the comments section it would appear that my opponent has simply reposted her opening statement as her first round. That's fine, I'll just rebut that. I'd like to remind my opponent that the last round is for rebuttal and summing up only.

For my rebuttal, I intend to unpick the subjective opinions, miscalculations, assumptions and simple flaws which lie at the heart of my opponent's case; so as to demonstrate that CRS is not all she's made up to be. Then, I shall move into my own substantives. My opponent's argument is based on the misassumption that CRS is obviously more deserving of fame and fortune than Tate Stevens (NB: this is my opponent's SUBJECTIVE OPINION), which I will seek to demonstrate is incorrect with my rebuttal, but my substantives will focus on why winning The X Factor is a poisoned chalice anyway.

Rebuttal I: "Carly was only 13 when she walked out on the X Factor stage. She was shy" - clashes with - "[Tate Stevens] just got the pity vote."
In terms of the message my opponent is trying to propagate, these two statements are completely contradictory. You cannot use CRS's age and shyness as a reason to vote for her whilst also criticising people for - allegedly - voting for Tate Stevens purely because they felt sorry for him. This is complete double standards from the obviously biased Proposition. Either people should vote with their heart - in which case they would take into account CRS's demeanour and Stevens's financial issues - or they vote with their head and ignore both factors. By suggesting that people should base their votes on CRS's personality and not Stevens's background, my opponent is giving a completely self-contradictory message.

Rebuttal II: "Her voice was so much more mature than a 13 year old's."
This point is irrelevant because vocal maturity is irrelevant to talent and popularity. Justin Bieber shot to fame at the age of 13 with a very immature voice, yet he still attracted crowds of supporters and is genuinely talented (despite the criticism levelled against him). Therefore, CRS's vocal maturity is irrelevant as it does not dictate talent/success.

Rebuttal III: "It was like a full grown professional adult singing, every time!"
So were Stevens's performances - adult and consistent. Neither ever hit the bottom 2. I re-iterate that, by your own policy that we shouldn't take Steven's situation into account, we shouldn't be giving her bonus points for her age.

Rebuttal IV: "You kind of would have a job if you were in The X Factor's top 3!"
Taking examples from the UK edition (as there have been more of them) many acts who finish in the Top 3 fade into obscurity very quickly indeed. Being in the Top 3 is no guarantee of everything. Ask the average Briton who Ben Mills, Amelia Lily, Eoghan Quigg or Leon Jackson are and they will simply look at you blankly.

Rebuttal V: "Even third place winners, Fifth Harmony, were quickly signed to a record label."
Most acts who get through to the final stages of talent shows get signed. Most are also dropped after one album because it flops. Chances are that Fifth Harmony will fall into this category. Anyway, if you're concerned about CRS getting a record deal, she's already been picked up by Syco Music, so the eventual goal has been achieved anyway.

Rebuttal VI: "The X Factor is a show about good singers, not sad stories."
If The X Factor is all about the singing, then all your previous arguments about CRS's age are rendered completely invalid. Stevens is a good singer, just clearly not to your taste.

Rebuttal VII: "Carly would've won if they had gone on one more week."
Incorrect. Fans knew precisely where people were finishing each week as - unlike in the UK version of the show - it was revealed each week. Stevens won for two weeks, then CRS for two weeks, then Stevens again. The voting was clearly close and so this statement is an assumption. Prove it.

Rebuttal VIII: "Fifth Harmony fans would've voted for Carly."
Unwarranted statement. Prove it.

Rebuttal IX: "It is simply insane that Carly, a 13 year old of extreme and rare talent, lost to a 40 year old country singer."
Double standards again, you've already set the precedent that we shouldn't take their ages into account. You have not demonstrated that CRS is more talented than Stevens, just that you personally prefer CRS. Therefore, taking talent out of the equation, it comes down to country versus pop. It would appear that country won on the night. Therefore, nothing is "insane" about this result.

Rebuttal X: "What is it with country singers winning EVERYTHING nowadays, anyway?"
Again, the Proposition has simply given us their own subjective opinion. What is it with Justin Bieber being popular? What is it with One Direction's hair? WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH TREES? I could go on.

Rebuttal XI: "It was completely unfair that Tate Stevens won."
He got the most votes - surely it would have been more unfair if Lopez and Kardashian had announced that CRS won despite receiving fewer votes from the public? It is completely 'fair', as that's how TV talent shows work.

I hope my rebuttal proves my point, that all the Proposition have done is give their own subjective opinions. Moving onto some substantives.

Substantive I: 13 year olds can't be trusted with $5million
I don't wish to offend my opponent, who I understand to be 12, but minors shouldn't be given this much money simply to play with. I'm 16, and I acknowledge that I shouldn't be trusted with $5million. The winner of The X Factor receives a guaranteed payment of $1million per year for 5 years, the largest prize in US television history. It will work out for the best that CRS does not get access to this sort of money (which, judging from her talent, I've no doubt she will) until she is both older and a bit more weary of the music industry. She will then have a better idea of how to spend it well and responsibly, as opposed to simply buying 20 ponies and the world's largest caterpillar cake within a week of receiving the first payment. It's an extreme example, but in general young people and vast amounts of unprotected money should not mix.

Substantive II: By not winning, CRS will encounter more mainstream success
It is the bizarre legacy of TV talent shows that those who come out of them best are those who do not win. Take the global phenomenon One Direction, who featured on the British version of The X Factor. They came third on the 2010 series of the show, yet have become the most successful talent show act ever and ambassadors for the franchise. Because they did not win they had more creative freedom, an underdog status, and the ability to craft a record deal which suited them as artists and as a group. By not winning, CRS is in an enviable position. She has demonstrated that she is hugely popular and has several record companies waiting at her door. She can now choose the company she wants, mould a record deal she wants, and retain greater artistic control over her career than if she had simply been shoehorned into a prewritten deal. She'll be able to retain the things which make her Carly, and made her so popular.

Summary of the Second Speech for the Opposition
The Proposition have, essentially, just said "I don't like Stevens, I prefer CRS, therefore she should have won." This is all subjective, unwarranted material. We have demonstrated that Stevens and CRS are equal on talent and that there is no good reason for the ruling to be overturned. Essentially, the Proposition is being a bit of a sore loser. We've knocked down all the arguments why CRS "should've won", and given our own as for why this situation will eventually turn out for the best for Carly. With all this, we urge you to Vote Con!

Back to the Proposition - I remind them that this speech should solely consist of rebuttal and summing up, and cannot contain new substantives.
Debate Round No. 2
AlyHo11

Pro

I apologize for the earlier inconvenience with me reposting my opening statement. This is my first debate on this website and I have just figured it out.

I: Stevens did not purely get the pity vote, but it was a high percentage of the results.

II: -

III: Steven's performances were adult because he was an adult. Sonenclar wasn't. He was also too consistent, not having the same wow factor as Sonenclar's performances. I understand that this merely sounds like an opinion, but I am not the only one who believes this.

IV: Stevens may not have had the fame, but undoubtedly, some producer(s) would try to get to him ASAP.

V: -

VI: All right, then, we can drop the age argument. But even you agree that Sonenclar has talent (Substantive I). I am not stating that Stevens cannot sing, because he can. A large percentage of the votes for Stevens (as I stated in my first rebuttal) was because of his "jobless situation".

VII and VIII: Why would the Fifth Harmony fans suddenly go from girl group pop fans to a middle aged country singer? Logically, they would turn to Sonenclar.

IX: I am a Sonenclar fan because she has a strong voice, does beautiful vocal gymnastics, and works the stage well. Again, this may seem opinionated, but I am sure you cannot disagree. (If you do, just look at any of her performances)

X: I said this because I have noticed country singers winning the majority of singing competition shows, such as American Idol.

XI: This was my conclusion statement. It summed up my position in this debate.

XII: This statement is somewhat opinionated. You don't know Sonenclar; she may just be amazing at managing money.

XIII: Again, this statement is opinionated. It does not always end up with the winner not being popular. Take Phillip Phillips, or Kelly Clarkson. They came in first on American Idol, and they are still popular.

XIV: I am not saying that I hate Stevens, although my opponent may have assumed this from my past statements. I am simply saying that Sonenclar is a good singer and Stevens' talent just doesn't make the cut... in my mind and many others'. Just look on the comments on Sonenclar's performances on Youtube, or on an article about her, etc.

Summing up, I understand that my opponent considers my points to be opinionated, but I say likewise. I hope voters recognize that Sonenclar has extreme talent and deserved first place on the X Factor. The reason why she should have won is because of her pure talent and Stevens was pitied. Now, it is quite clear that all voters should vote pro!
orangemayhem

Con

I'd like to thank the Proposition for concluding their side of today's debate. I shall now do some deeper rebuttal and then move on to sum up this debate for the Opposition which will leave the voters with no doubts whatsoever about who has won.

Rebuttal I: "Stevens did not purely get the pity vote but it was a high percentage of the results."
This statement is still unwarranted. You THINK he got the pity vote but you have no reliable way of proving it. This is an assumption on your part therefore I win this point.

Rebuttal II: "He was also too consistent, not having the same wow factor as CRS's performances."
Again, my opponent has contradicted themselves. In her opening statement she praised CRS for being consistent, yet she now criticises Stevens for his consistency. Regardless of this, consistency is a good thing. If CRS's 'wow factor' came from the fact she was inconsistent she must have had some awful weeks.

Rebuttal III: "Undoubtedly some producer would try to get to him ASAP."
Again, this is unwarranted, you have supplied no information or examples to support your argument. I've given examples of people dropped after a single flop who end up in a similar or worse position to their lives before The X Factor. Proposition is simply making unwarranted assumptions, Opposition takes the point.

Rebuttal IV: "Logically, [Fifth Harmony fans] would turn to CRS."
... or, being stroppy young girls, they probably just wouldn't vote in the final? Again an unwarranted assumption, Opposition wins this point as Proposition hasn't demonstrated why they would simply switch over to CRS as if Fifth Harmony had never existed.

Rebuttal V: "CRS has a strong voice, does beautiful vocal gymnastics, and works the stage well."
So does Stevens! You just prefer CRS because you're a 12 year old! It appeals more to your market, but the fact is that you are slating Stevens without realising that not everyone thinks like you do. Just because Stevens doesn't appeal as much to YOUR demographic it does not make him inherently inferior. Proposition is citing their own opinion as a national trend even though the figures on the night show it is not, so Opposition win this point.

Rebuttal VI: "I have noticed country singers winning the majority of singing competition shows."
This would seem to suggest that - shock and horror - people QUITE LIKE COUNTRY SINGERS. Just because they're winning similar shows that doesn't mean that you shouldn't vote for them. These shows exist to find the public's favourite act, a concept the Proposition does not seem to have gotten to grips with. This is not a valid reason for CRS to win over Stevens so Opposition wins on this.

Rebuttal VII: "CRS may just be amazing at managing money."
Again we're making assumptions, I will accept, but my assumption is more grounded because years of social history and scientific research have shown that, on the whole, minors are not trustworthy with money. Justin Bieber spends $50,000 per week on parties and designer clothes. This is a speculative substantive but my speculation is grounded and better-informed so Opposition takes the point.

Rebuttal VIII: "It does not always end up with the winner not being popular."
This statement isn't opinionated, it's a genuine trend. You cite Kelly Clarkson and Phillip Phillips. Phillips is the most recent winner, hence still being well-known, and Clarkson was the first winner hence the fact that she is still popular (i.e. she is more famous as an artist in her own right than as an American Idol alumnus). These are two cherry-picked examples. Now let's look at examples from across the world which support my argument. Winners who failed include Steve Brookstein, Ruben Studdard, Taylor Hicks, David Cook, Leon Jackson... I could go on. Runners-up include Olly Murs, JLS, Stacey Solomon, Rebecca Ferguson and G4 (all very famous in the UK) and of course One Direction (obsession of the moment for teenage girls everywhere). I have shown a more solid and consistent trend than the Proposition so I win this point.

Rebuttal IX: "Just look at comments on CRS's videos on YouTube."
Comments on this sort of thing only ever represent the extremes of the spectrum, i.e. those who love and those who loathe. Look at Justin Bieber's videos, it's a case in point. If you look at Stevens's videos, you'll see there are many people who vehemently disagree with you.

My opponent has dropped the following arguments:
That Fifth Harmony will probably flop
That vocal maturity is irrelevant to voting behaviour
That CRS now has more control over her destiny because she is not shoehorned into a pre-written record deal

That's all my rebuttal done. For my summing up, I'd like to briefly talk about the two Points of Clash (PoCs) in this debate.

PoC1: From a talent perspective, have the Proposition shown that Tate Stevens is objectively inferior to CRS?
No, they have not. The Proposition have essentially said "I prefer CRS, and so do my friends, therefore we're right". This completely ignores the fact that, being a 12 year old themselves, they and their friends are in the perfect target market for CRS. My opponent has self-righteously assumed that everyone thinks like them and some great injustice has occurred but they also stubbornly refuse to recognise that her opinion is clearly a minority one. That's black and white, it's in the results. They've also banged on and on about Stevens only winning because he got the sympathy vote but this is an assumption and she has not provided any evidence which fulfils her burden of proof. Opposition win this point.

PoC2: Have the Opposition shown that this situation will work out for the best for CRS?
Yes, we have. We've demonstrated that CRS will make her vast millions and have her spectacular success when she is older and can cope with the pressures and demands of fame more easily. We've also shown that she's on course to be able to mould a record deal which suits her, unlike Stevens's position. Proposition did not refute this point so Opposition takes this point of clash.

Summary of this debate, and why you should vote Con
What we have demonstrated throughout this debate is that the Proposition's views are based on their own demographic and don't represent a national trend. The Proposition had the burden of proof to demonstrate that more people prefer CRS to Stevens, and the Proposition has failed to meet this. Conversely, Opposition have shown every step of the way that the Proposition's arguments are meritless, as they are only applicable to certain people.My opponent is, essentially, a CRS supporter who is being a bit of a sore loser. They have provided no concrete reason for this decision to be overturned, have dropped all of my arguments about how this situation will serve CRS for the best, and haven't actually proven or even demonstrated that Stevens only won due to the sympathy vote, which is the cornerstone of their argument.

With all that, the winner of this debate is crystal clear. The team which has provided reasoning behind the decision and drawn back the curtains on the Proposition's web of assumptions is ours. We leave you with little choice other than to Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by AlyHo11 4 years ago
AlyHo11
Well, it was fun anyways, orangemayhem. Thanks for debating with me!
Posted by AlyHo11 4 years ago
AlyHo11
I'll have to cram on the third round...
Posted by AlyHo11 4 years ago
AlyHo11
oops sorry I reposted the same thing
Posted by AlyHo11 4 years ago
AlyHo11
I'm just trying to debate with a Tate Stevens fan, OK, orangemayhem?
Posted by orangemayhem 4 years ago
orangemayhem
If the people voted for her then she should win. There's really very little to argue about here...
No votes have been placed for this debate.