The Instigator
Meganrihanne1992x
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

Fame shouldnt be so accesible.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,941 times Debate No: 9624
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

Meganrihanne1992x

Pro

My Arguement is basically based on a few impliments I looked into,
Fame should not be so easy to claim.

Nowadays you get famous for simply everything, everyday we see someone new in the limelight, the music acting and arts industry is simply based on letting People in and out and grabbing and exploiting fame.

I mean for eg: (Megan fox)Who had a consecutive number of surgerys, and was in just a few films made FHMs sexiest woman! her sucess has nowhere been as high as for eg: Angelina Jolie, who the recent megan fox compared herself to.

My arguement: stop letting anyone have there claim ! We live in to much of a social- manipulated society to let people who claim to be either remotley talented , or just in a reality tv show bash the magazines
Danielle

Con

[ What is Fame? ]

The definition of fame is widespread reputation. Pro notes that nowadays, you get famous for simply everything. I disagree. Does one achieve fame for banging your boss? Maybe if you're Monica Lewinski. Or how about spending a night in Paris? Only if you're Rick Solomon. My point here is that you do not get famous for "simply everything" as my opponent implies. Instead, you become famous either because the public has interest in you for a specific reason, i.e. you have famous family; you're dating someone famous; you're involved in a scandal; your actions have been note-worthy by society; you've accomplished something great; done something drastically heinous; etc. To clarify, not many people are famous. In fact, the majority of people are not famous and will never be famous.

[ What's Wrong With Fame? ]

Good question. So far Pro has not provided one negative issue about someone being famous. Sure there are prices to fame for those that are, but since most of us are not going to be famous and we enjoy fame (which is apparent since our interest is what makes people/things famous to begin with), I don't see any direct threat or harm of fame itself. Of course there are the annoying paparazzi who may make the lives of famous people hell, but fame is the price of success, and many celebrities have proven that there are ways to remain low-key if you're vehemently inclined. Plus, they usually make a boat load of money and profit off of that fame, which is one reason why people aren't too sympathetic about their situation.

Moving on, Pro provided the example of Megan Fox whom she scorns for comparing herself to Angelina Jolie. I fail to see the problem with this comparison. Who really cares who the hell Megan Fox compared herself to? Who is it hurting? What rights has she violated? I don't see a problem with her declaration, with her being declared the sexiest woman according to FHM (even if I disagree with it) or her numerous surgeries. The only argument Pro has provided here is to say "Stop letting anyone have their claim!" though you'll notice that there are no premises in support of this argument, nor does she specify whom she is directing this exclamation to amongst other problems.

[ Are There Any Benefits to Fame? ]

Of course. Suppose you're a BAMF musician but aren't getting a lot of exposure. As such, you're not expanding your fan base or your reputation. The repercussions of this mean that you're not going to get the credit that you deserve, and may miss opportunities to make a lot of money and profit off of your marketability. Indeed becoming famous is a great way to gain recognition for your accomplishments and talents as well as achieve monetary gain and other perks of being a celebrity. For instance you get to network with a lot of rich and powerful people, as well as live it up in the good life. I don't think most people would mind being famous for a good thing.

[ Are There Any Benefits of Fame for Those Who Are Not Famous? ]

Yep. Suppose you are a nice girl just looking for a good guy to date. You meet a gentleman who's exactly your type, though he mentions that he would only be available several days of the week to hang out with you because he had a few court dates to tend to. But, he seemed nice enough - you're sure it was only a traffic ticket, or that he witnessed a crime perhaps - and so you take him up on his offer to go boating. You could hardly wait for your big date with Mr. Scott Peterson! So, isn't it a good thing that Scott's heinous crime was enough to gain him media recognition that would detail his crime the second you typed his name into Google? Surely that's something that you'd want to know about a person, eh? Now, of course there are downsides to this as well. Nobody wants their business all over the internet, or to become famous in a bad way or for something embarrassing (Scarlet takes a tumble, anyone?). However being aware of dangers or threats to society and your safety because their actions have been made famous are indeed one benefit to fame.

Another benefit to fame is that the public may become aware of things that they like or enjoy. For instance, had products not become famous for their advertising - including musicians for their music - then how would great masses of people be introduced to things? Additionally, the public benefits from the people becoming famous who then provide a great deal of entertainment. Not to mention that the economy profits off of people's fame. Where would the photographers, paparazzi, writers, editors, owners, etc. of magazines like Us and People be without making other people famous? The media is actually a mutually beneficial industry: It makes celebrities famous which helps their career, and at the same time, the media profits off of people's entertainment by famous people's careers and lives.

[ What Should the Criteria for Fame Be? ]

I've already explained some reasons and scenarios that can make people famous. Pro notes that people shouldn't become famous for every little thing, such as being a new face in the music or arts industry. I'd like to know what then the criteria for fame should be, and I can work on the rest of my argument from Pro's submission.

[ How Do We Stop People From Becoming Famous? ]

You'll notice that Pro hasn't given an adequate explanation as for how we should stop people from becoming famous (let alone why we should). As I've said, people become famous based on other people's interests. If one is interested in something, can they help it? Nope. The only thing they can do is try to subdue it. Fame is achieved by popularity, i.e. if a lot of people see a movie, it will become famous (for better or worse). Now obviously people like to be entertained regardless of what that entertainment is, either through the media, games, etc. Even in ancient times, people gathered at the Colosseum to witness sporting events or even executions. Since humans have such a strong desire to be entertained, what Pro is suggesting is to stop ourselves from partaking in simple things that we enjoy. For instance, would an average person become famous for starring in a reality TV show if people didn't enjoy watching that program? No. I submit that the public should be allowed to enjoy whatever minor pleasures they wish so long as nobody is getting hurt in the process. So long as Pro hasn't explained why fame is detrimental, then my argument stands.
Debate Round No. 1
Meganrihanne1992x

Pro

My opponent Firstly starts her argument by giving her brief introduction on what she sees Fame is. My opponent disagrees that you get famous for " anything" she explains to be known in today's society or even briefly recognised you need to be involved with someone who " is" Famous ( has a relative/friend who is popular amongst being famous), involved in a scandal of some sort. etc she goes on to explain. I ask my opponent this she states " You get famous for doing or accomplishing something" Which is exactly my point!.. You have list everyday you can be seen in the eye of the media.. for ego: Jackass, Just making a complete fool of yourself on camera can make you millions! The guys who presented them self Our global and in global stars!... . Which is basically my point, the more people out to make hysteria amongst the public is the more accessible ones to go far in the industry.

So what's my point?><

My opponent clarify that I haven't made a negative explanation about what I think gives fame the negative aura, My opponent states that the paparazzi and public are the ones that keep these celebrity's upbraid and on our tv, magazines etc, We make money off these people who have there" claim to fame" ..We spend more than 30q$ a week to souvenir and pay there fame, The public gives a person fame, What negative issues I have, is seeing for eg someone from the big brother house having a scandal and rather hearing the sucess or stories about The real heroic, succesful stars we are bashed with people just like ourselves Who have suddenly made themself become famous by bieng briefly on tv, Statisctically we are spending our money on these reality tv shows by sucking up to the media.

My opponent then goes on re-elaborate the statment I made about " MeganFox, She also says " who cares who she compares herself to?" Obviously to be printed on over 6 magazines covers The media declorates alot of people to care!, Of course there is no real violation but the whole concept of someone Who tries to be a "rip off jolie clon" Is only just angered the media public, We dont want to see people on the magazines who May be angered by the fact someone is stripping off for a living and been in only a few tv films, is Comparing some may see as there idol " Angelina jolie"

There is alot of benefits to fame Im not ruling this out, You making alot of money and a good career , But Fame consquently gives people Arrogance, Not only this is manipulates there Fame, Its humilating to see a paparazi who ridicules for eg " brittany murphy for wearing a dress thats to small",This gives people negative views about how the media exploits young celebritys and also How Fame can dammage someones career.

<>
This goes on to explain not only people who want to get famous, but the paparazi and People who may envy or ridicule these celebs, Rather than having an eyes view on what the celebrity may be up to, what next film there going to be in " etc we are bombarded.. About brittanys next scandal, about Jessicas albas " Love affair", We are not just looking at celebriteys , we are looking about people who have bieng exploited and who constantly have to make defense mechanisms for there actions.

Con states what My criteria for fame should be, Its not what i would see as a criteria but what i would see is new and different, if someone has a reconsible talent of course they should be popular amongst public and have there fame...I think people should be famous for bieng Talented entertaining, different, mysterious maybe... Not just the same old crap of people who have been on a relatity Tv show, Im not going to deny this is of course of an intrest to the public eye.. but not after 3 months and seeing them trying to hang on to there fame by re-claiming it and bieng on a new tv show or Trying to make it into the music and acting industry... These people only go far because the industry allows them to, they enjoy making money of there implimented , downfalls, scandals etc, So if we are allowing people like this into it, Where is all the real talent?, We are overpopulating the music, acting industry by letting naieve ammatures take the spotlight, Rather than people who have d worked on this.

So my arguement stands as this Fame shouldnt be so accesible,We shouldnt let people who have made minor sucess, in reality tv etc overpopulate the music, singing acting industry, Furthermore Why should it be a concern to me?, To be honest its a subject I have taken lightly and done my research its About people who have tried to hard to become worldwide known but is setback, my ammatures that steal that spotlight, that is one of my major frustration about the media.

Im not ruling out FAME , I do enjoy reality tv and entertainment shows, but i dont want to see them trying to setting there standards to high and trying to become worlwide, when there is other talented people who have that chance!.

Who is to blame?..- Simply put the Media! exploiting and manipulating peoples Hopes!

I say this to con, who explains "its ok if nobody gets hurt" , All celebriteys worlwide succesful or not! constantly read about negative statements about themself, its basic " Fame". So that is getting hurt , exploited..They have to live with it!

--I will provide sources on our last Arguement So we can abreviate and analyse both pro and Con --
Danielle

Con

PRO'S ARGUMENTS:

1) People become famous for being jackasses.
2) We're paying - literally - for people's fame.
3) Megan Fox shouldn't compare herself to Angelina Jolie.
4) Fame makes people arrogant.
5) Famous people are critiqued like crazy; this can damage their career.
6) People should be famous for being talented; amateurs are becoming famous at the expense of others.

CON'S REBUTTAL:

1) Yes, it's true that people can become famous literally for acting like a jackass. However, the success of those on the Jackass show, for instance, is largely in part due to the fact that the show - for whatever reason - has a lot of fans. Of course certain people become famous despite many people not liking them or their act, i.e. Carrot Top. However, the vast majority of famous people are celebrities because people enjoy what they do. Even Paris Hilton didn't achieve her height of fame as an heiress until her show The Simple Life came out. Sure, many people may think that she's retarded and not deserve fame; however, the reality is that people actually WATCHED the show. Regardless of their opinion of her, she achieved the spotlight because people kept her in the public eye. Remember, the media (magazines, for instance) aren't going to put just anyone on the cover of their magazine. Instead, they're going to go for someone who can get the magazine to SELL because they catch the interest of the public.

By the audience constantly talking about or being interested in a celebrity, they're going to make that celebrity famous. People enjoy being entertained, even if it's at the expense (making fun) of others. Just because Pro may not like the show Jackass doesn't mean that others don't love it. I fail to see how the stars of this show therefore don't deserve success. After all, they meet my opponent's criteria for what people SHOULD be famous for, and that is having a talent or doing something with that talent. Apparently the stars of Jackass are good at making fools of themselves, engaging in ridiculous behavior, pulling off crazy antics, and making people laugh in the process. Good for them.

2) Pro also mentioned that we're paying big bucks for people's fame. I fail to see how this is relevant to the resolution at all. Nobody is forcing someone to buy a celebrity's album, photo, a magazine that they're on the cover on, a movie ticket to see a movie that they're starring in, etc. Those are things that people do voluntarily and as such it can not be used to make Pro's case. If she doesn't think that she should be contributing to someone's wealth who doesn't deserve it, then she can take measures to not support that celebrity. In a capitalistic society, people are free to spend their money however they see fit. Supply and demand regulates costs too; if people weren't so willing to spend big bucks on entertainment or celebrities themselves, then they wouldn't be paid as much.

3) Pro has a problem with Megan Fox comparing herself to Angelina Jolie because A.J. is Pro's idol. While I can sympathize with her frustration, I fail to see how this is relevant to the affirmative's case. Moreover, Pro says that just because a lot of people might be exposed to the comparison that a lot of people must CARE about the comparison. This is not true. I'm exposed to things every day that I don't care about; for instance, today I've heard several times already that the Arizona Cardinals lost a baseball game last night. Big deal. Some people might care or be interested in this news, but most probably don't. The same logic applies to Megan Fox's declaration. I personally think that Pro's concern about Fox's statement is dramatic, irrelevant and unnecessary.

4) Sure, fame makes people arrogant, but success of any kind can make people arrogant. In order for this to be a legitimate argument, Pro would have to prove that we should eliminate and diminish any act that promotes arrogance. That is simply an unsound ideal. Plus, if someone is arrogant to the point of their detriment, then that is their problem. Nobody has to cater to arrogance or foster it; people make the conscious decision to feed people's egos, etc.

5) I've already explained in the last round how fame can hurt people's careers. As I've said, fame comes at a price. The counter to the scrutiny that comes with being in the public eye is the fact that most famous people PROFIT off of being in the spotlight. Whether the people's opinion of them is good or bad, either way being in the public eye is usually a profitable experience. For instance, consider "Octomom" who many people condemn for having so many children despite not being financially stable. She is bashed left and right; however, because she's become famous as a result of these criticisms, she's making money off of it. Now I suppose this is where Pro will say "This is exactly my point" however this is exactly MY point. Octomom didn't make herself famous; PEOPLE made her famous. For whatever BS reason, people still feel the need to take interest in her and her life. They are feeding into her fame. This is neither good nor bad - it just is. And, like I said, people can take away the fame as easily as they gave her the fame. For instance, does anybody really give a hoot about Leif Garrett anymore? Nope. But he was once as famous and popular as ever.

As far as fame being damaging to one's career, that is a risk in almost any profession. As I said, people usually profit off of their fame for one reason or another, so this is almost irrelevant. Additionally, Pro failed to respond to several aspects of my last case including the fact that people becoming famous for their crimes can sometimes be a good thing. For instance, Governor Elliot Spitzer of New York became famous for spending government money on prostitutes; I'd say that this is one instance where fame damaging one's career would be a GOOD thing. Before the scandal, only people in New York had ever really heard of Spitzer. The point here is that fame being a downside to a celebrity's career is kind of moot; it's only because that they're already famous could this even happen.

6) Finally Pro complains that more talented people are being ignored because amateurs or those with considerably less talent are stealing the spotlight instead. This again is irrelevant and too bad, so sad for them. In the music industry, for instance, it's not just talent which gains one recognition but rather their marketability. Since the industry is about making money, this is a reasonable ideal. If it weren't about making money and instead just the love of music, then artists wouldn't seek out record deals and instead enjoy their music amongst themselves and friends, family, etc. Obviously musicians and other celebrities WANT to become famous, i.e. recognized, so again this is a totally moot point offered by the Pro. If someone is talented and yet not famous, then they have to accept that fame is fickle just like other industries are fickle. If they can't accept that, then perhaps they should seek a new or more stable industry. At the very least, they can/should rely on themselves for fame instead of banking on someone else (i.e. an agent) to get it for them. If they can't get it on their own, then that's their fault/problem.

CONCLUSION:

I'd like to note that Pro has failed to respond to some of my key arguments, including the main fact that claim isn't EASILY accessible as she implies in both R1 and the very resolution itself. If it were, then more people would be famous. Additionally, there's nothing inherently wrong or dangerous about one being famous, and people can always choose to diminish their chances of being in the spotlight, and/or contribute to one's removal of being in the spotlight. Moreover, certain people being famous is actually beneficial to the public. There is no specific criteria for fame nor can it be regulated. So back to you, Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Meganrihanne1992x

Pro

Con has misinterpreted My whole perception of Fame.

She has obviously not paid enough attention to see where im coming from.

1:) she said i" people become famous for bieng jackasses" - that was purely an example of extreme entertainment gone to its next level and offending public views

2:) Yes we ARE litrully paying for there fame! ,, If we didnt buy there tickets, there merchandise Magazines ETC they wouldnt be famous beause they wouldnt have a public eye.

3:) You brought up Megan fox a few occasions ..can i remind con who thought to state this in her arguement , wanting me to provide an explanation into why.
Fame does make people arrogant! Im sure they would even admit to that.

Though jackass has been a sucess, it still didnt reach no1 , in terms of entertainment, I mean look at how many other shows are copyrighting his skills etc!

My whole debate comes from certain views, ones of those as the public eye and the other exhibit of the celebrity itself
there have been few psychiatric studies into fame, possibly because it's very difficult to recruit celebrities to be part of experiments. In the past it was thought that the kind of personality who pursues and attains fame may be one to psychological problems, possibly narcissitic personalities exhibiting self-absorption, egocentrism and self-importance. Yet some recent research suggests that it is the effect of becoming famous that is the real psychological hazard, not the personality type, Furthermore this suggests my whole point on how fame can be damaging.. and we are constantly projecting young people to build a career through magazines tv entertainment etc.

Con explains some of my arguements are irrelevant, and that most sucess is based on markerbility.. What would we actuallty market if celebritys are constantly using PAs, Understudies and personal demolitions to speak on behalf of them, we are not mearly looking at celebs here, but undermined people who dont have there own voice.

Fame comes from 3 basic genres, entertainment, tv and film, We have people like johnny depp, christian bale etc who are amazing succesful actors yet a recent story had said, before johnny depp was to get the part in Pirates of the carribean it was going to be given to a new inspiring actor who was still in stage school, The boy who was audioning (larry clark) find it momentously difficult because the part needed alot of emotional stability and motivation, The boy of course couldnt go through with it-- This is a Big example of how the industry sets amateurs goals to high before they can finish with there education and acting roles.

Of course people bieng famous is beneficial to the public but that of course is "certain "people, My arguement is basically that the indusry should set a specific criteria and there should be some obligations, to get the people who even though the public might watch not feel in anger that these people who have not worked atall has a place in the idustry whereas people like " brittany spears" went through momentum years of singing auditons etc to be where she is now.

Perhaps con seems to think the industry has became bigger?...No these people are so desperate and consumed in all the fame perceptions, they use there ways to become someone bigger, and these industies exploit that nature.

Cons summary <>

Con states numerous times, that is ok to have fame, there isnt a certain criteria, and its entertainment... where is your arguement into why?

Con also rather than using facts and opinions, brings my statements up as irrelevant yet argues against them?.

Con also rather than sticking to the subject of letting people easily become into the norm of exploitation manipulation etc ..has used well known people as her examples, im not argueing into the people who have made a living for years exploits! im talking about people who want to be famous who will use anything to get in the industry.

TO conclude this my arguement s stands..The industry and Paps should be focusing on the real talent and submission rather than people who the media can exploit and manipulate ( the naieve ) it should become more discreet , so that people with talent have a fair chance of bieng in the public eye rather than people who are famous for a day and build a career on wanting huge sucess career!
Danielle

Con

Pro's last round was a joke. She has done absolutely nothing to defend her case or further her argument against mine. In the last round, I outlined Pro's contentions and here is how she responded:

First, she agrees, "Yes! We are paying for their fame!" in reference to famous people. What does that have to do with anything? She completely ignored my point, which was that nobody is forcing someone to buy a celebrity's album, photo, a magazine that they're on the cover on, a movie ticket to see a movie that they're starring in, etc. Those are things that people do voluntarily and as such it can not be used to make Pro's case. If she doesn't think that she should be contributing to someone's wealth who doesn't deserve it, then she can take measures to not support that celebrity. In a capitalistic society, people are free to spend their money however they see fit. Supply and demand regulates costs too; if people weren't so willing to spend big bucks on entertainment or celebrities themselves, then they wouldn't be paid as much. Since she has not refuted this reality at all, my point stands.

Second, Pro said in regard to her irrelevant point about Megan Fox, "Fame does make people arrogant! Im sure they would even admit to that." Uhh, what does one have to do with the other? She responded with nothing of substance to my point that her Angelina Jolie quip was irrelevant, and also, I agreed in the last round that fame made people arrogant. However, you'll notice that Pro completely ignored my points: Sure, fame makes people arrogant, but success of any kind can make people arrogant. In order for this to be a legitimate argument, Pro would have to prove that we should eliminate and diminish any act that promotes arrogance. That is simply an unsound ideal. Plus, if someone is arrogant to the point of their detriment, then that is their problem. Nobody has to cater to arrogance or foster it; people make the conscious decision to feed people's egos, etc.

Then Pro shifts into talking about Jackass again out of nowhere. Her point was nonsensical and completely incomprehensible. "Though jackass has been a sucess, it still didnt reach no1 , in terms of entertainment, I mean look at how many other shows are copyrighting his skills etc!" ... What?

Anyway then Pro introduces an entirely new argument in her final round, stating that fame can cause psychological problems that can have damaging effects on a person. She suggests that we discourage the youth from wanting to seek fame. First of all, I've already demonstrated the perks of fame, so to discourage people from seeking success in that way would be unjust. Second, fame does not affect everybody to a negative extent. For those that are affected, they should either take means to rectify that (see therapists... and most of them do) or avoid the spotlight. Also, most who sought fame - the kind Pro is arguing against in her case - chose to be famous; they did so fully knowing of the liberties or privacy they might lose. They made their choices because they perceived or predicted that the positives would outweigh the negatives. They often do.

Pro next begins a new argument about how celebrities don't have their own voice. I say that this isn't the case. First, celebrities choose and hire their staff to speak for them. Second, a celebrity is first and foremost his or her own person - not merely a product. They might take some heat for being an individual, but in the end, they can no matter what. Third, often when famous people speak out, they have nothing of substance to say anyway. I mean do people really care what Kanye West has to say? The point here is that each celebrity is responsible for their own actions and their own voice, or lack thereof. This has nothing to do with the resolution at hand.

Next, once again Pro offers a brand new argument. She complains about "the industry" setting amateur's goals too high before they can finish with their education to pursue their acting goals. Uh, so what? This is true about EVERY industry, most notably the sports industry. This happens in the business industry as well. Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college because he became a millionaire in the tech world (Facebook). Often people leave school to enter the workforce instead, especially if they have a family job or a public service job line up for them. This also applies to the military in some cases. So, Pro once again presents a useless argument in defense of the resolution at hand.

Pro continues to try and present some criteria that people should have in order to be famous. She lists years of hard work and dedication as part of that criteria. How does this apply to those who become famous through politics or scandal? It doesn't, therefore this suggestion is entirely flawed and unreliable. It's also impractical and damn near impossible. Furthermore, sometimes the more talented people are less experienced. What about them? Should talent not be a prime criteria and more important, useful and practical than experience?

Anyhow, Pro writes, "Perhaps con seems to think the industry has became bigger?...No these people are so desperate and consumed in all the fame perceptions, they use there ways to become someone bigger, and these industries exploit that nature." I have absolutely no idea what she's talking about here. Nor do I have any idea what she's talking about in the rest of her round. Her spelling, grammar and entire lack of continuity in terms of her argument as well as basic, elementary sentence structure has made me completely unaware of what she was trying to say. She never really made any points; she simply said that I didn't make any when in fact everything I said was backed up and supported with facts and examples.

In conclusion, I think that my position in this argument has been clear and consistent all along. Few people - most of who wish have a strong desire to become famous - achieve fame. For those who have no desire to become famous but do anyway, it's probably because they're involved in a type of scandal that the public would benefit from knowing about, therefore even if fame is bad for them, it's good for others. For those who wish to seek fame regardless of the potential negatives, they may jeopardize their mental stability or privacy willingly because of the perks that they'd get (attention, money, VIP passes, opportunities, recognition, etc.). Everyone is responsible for their own actions, and each has the right to seek whatever dreams they please so long as others are not hurt in the process. The media is basically working together with the people to create fame; if the people stop being interested in certain people, the media will too, and thus you cannot blame the media for making people famous. Pro has not proven why fame should not be so easily accessible. She also hasn't provided a sufficient means of ensuring that this is the case. Thus for every reason you should vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Meganrihanne1992x 7 years ago
Meganrihanne1992x
fair"
Posted by Meganrihanne1992x 7 years ago
Meganrihanne1992x
yh fait to say THE l werd is a hard one to beat!
Posted by PorkTornado 7 years ago
PorkTornado
I agree that fame shouldn't be so accessible in many cases, but pro's argument was weak against a strong debater. Fame is only available to a limited number of people because everyone cannot be widely known, and there are so many famous people these days whose talents aren't deserving of the fame they receive that it's hard for the people who have enough talent to deserve to be widely known to earn the fame they seek. This topic reminds me of a quote I heard once in a movie (Half Baked?) "People used to be famous because they were great. Now people are great for being famous." which doesn't apply to every person who has fame, but it certainly applies to a large portion of them.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by iholland95 5 years ago
iholland95
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Vote Placed by PorkTornado 7 years ago
PorkTornado
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Meganrihanne1992xDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07