The Instigator
TheGreatFatsby
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
nerdykiller
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

"High Noon" was better than "Rio Bravo"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
TheGreatFatsby
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,960 times Debate No: 20092
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

TheGreatFatsby

Pro

This is my first debate on this website so please forgive any errors I might make with the formatting etc. From what I have read in other debates, the first round is generally set aside for clarifying and to set parameters.

I think, within reason, mostly anything can be used in terms of how we compare and contrast the two movies. Plot, acting, cinematography (the main film elements) are good but the overlying themes, societal significance and clash of the values the two represent are fine too. Please do not use logic like "Dean Martin's character in 'Rio Bravo' was called Dude so clearly it was better than 'High Noon'!" It is silly and irrelevant.

Wikipedia is a perfectly reliable source for this debate. Given the immense popularity of the "High Noon" and "Rio Bravo" the Wikipedia articles on them have been read, re-read and edited many times.

I am pretty flexible with regards to other parameters so I will most likely accept the terms stated in your Round 1 post unless I feel they are unfair or unnecessary. In either case, I will respond to that in my Round 2 post before my argument.

I am a senior in high school and I have several college applications due by the 1st of January so I might post my responses at the very last minute and I apologize in advance for that! :)

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to hone my debate skills.
nerdykiller

Con

Hello TheGreatFatsby!
For you to get the most out of this debate I want to make little notes which will begin with a ( and end with ).
I think I can help you improve by doing this, but if you refuse then it is fine.

I believe I will be your con for this debate challenge.
I hope this will be a fun debate and let us begin in round 2.

Since the Pro didn't provide the definition I will do so.
(This is something I do or other DDO members do in order to clarify the definition.)

Better- of superior quality or excellence
http://dictionary.reference.com...

TheGreatFatsby just in case, may I ask that you don't write any more arguments, rebuttals, new rules, and etc; in the comment section please.
I had bad experience with people doing such deed.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to debate and let it begin!
Debate Round No. 1
TheGreatFatsby

Pro

I should have defined it, apologies for that. And yes please! By all means give me pointers! :) And I won't post in the comment section anymore, no worries.

On to the good stuff!

The AFI = The American Film Institute
IMDb = The Internet Movie Database (website)
Blacklisting = People in the film industry being denied employment because they were suspected of being Communist (during the McCarthy era)

My argument:

I believe that while both "High Noon" and "Rio Bravo" were two extremely good movies, "High Noon" was ‘better' in several respects.

1. Better actors/acting, mainly Gary Cooper being better than John Wayne.

While "Rio Bravo" had a very strong cast, "High Noon" simply outclassed it almost entirely with regards to the cast.

For example, let us compare and contrast the lead actors:

Gary Cooper had an acting career that lasted from 1925 until just before his death in 1961. He received five Academy Award nominations for Best Actor, winning twice for "Sergeant York" and you guessed it, "High Noon". He also received an Honorary Award in 1961 for his motion picture achievements. On the American Film Institute's list of Top 25 Male Actors ("AFI's 100 Years…100 Stars"), Cooper ranks 11th. His performances in "High Noon", "The Pride of the Yankees" and "Sergeant York" made the AFI's 100 Years…100 Heroes and Villains (all as heroes) with his role as Will Kane in "High Noon" ranking 5th.

John Wayne is the biggest box office draw of all time, starring in 142 movies usually typecast in Westerns. He was nominated for Best Actor three times and won once for his performance in "True Grit". He received no Honorary Academy Award. He is also on the AFI's Top 25 Male Actors, but at 13th –two behind Cooper. His performance as Rooster Cogburn in "True Grit" made the 100 Years…100 Heroes and Villains as the 36th best hero, placing behind Cooper's worst performance on that list (35. Alvin C. York in "Sergeant York").

As for the rest of the cast, "High Noon" had much more depth. Though "Rio Bravo" featured icon Dean Martin and the famous Walter Brennan, "High Noon" sported the likes of Grace Kelly (who later became the Princess of Monaco!) and Thomas Mitchell. Even the smaller roles in "High Noon" had better actors, the best example being Lee Van Cleef as Jack Colby, one of the four villains. Van Cleef later became renowned as a classic Western villain, famously being the villain in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" and "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly".

Thus "High Noon" had better actors and casting, as well as better acting. This is evidenced by Gary Cooper winning Best Actor for his role as Will Kane, when John Wayne was not even nominated for his role as John Chance.

2. "High Noon" receiving more recognition and accolades than "Rio Bravo".

"High Noon" was nominated for seven Academy Awards and won four of them:
-Best Actor in a Leading Role (Gary Cooper)
-Best Film Editing
-Best Music, Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture
-Best Music, Song

It was nominated for but did not win Best Director, Best Picture and Best Writing, Screenplay.

It is also widely recognized by the AFI:
American Film Institute recognition
•1998 AFI's 100 Years…100 Movies -- #33
•2001 AFI's 100 Years…100 Thrills -- #20
•2003 AFI's 100 Years…100 Heroes and Villains:
•Will Kane, hero #5
•2004 AFI's 100 Years…100 Songs:
•"High Noon (Do Not Forsake Me, Oh My Darlin')" -- #25
•2005 AFI's 100 Years of Film Scores -- #10
•2006 AFI's 100 Years…100 Cheers -- #27
•2007 AFI's 100 Years…100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) -- #27
•2008 AFI's 10 Top 10 Westerns -- #2 (of all time!)

"Rio Bravo" on the other hand, was not nominated for any Academy Awards and has not been recognized by the AFI in any of its lists.

Finally, possibly the best piece of evidence, is that "High Noon" was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry by the Library of Congress for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" in 1989 (the year the Registry was made). "Rio Bravo", however, has yet to be included in this exclusive group of films.

Thus, "High Noon" was much more recognized than "Rio Bravo" in the film community and received numerous awards while the latter won none.

3. "High Noon" had a much larger cultural impact than "Rio Bravo" and more accurately portrayed society and the values represented by a leader.

"High Noon" is often viewed as an allegory for the blacklisting of people in the film industry during the McCarthy era. Many interpret Marshal Will Kane's lone stand against the villains as heroically standing up to blacklisting when the rest of the townspeople (allegorically representing Hollywood people) were too afraid to fight it.

However, the film eventually gained respect from even the conservatives and anti-Communists.

It is the film most requested for viewing by U.S. Presidents:

--Ronald Reagan, a conservative and fervent anti-Communist, said he appreciated the film because the main character had a strong dedication to duty, law, and the well being of the town despite the refusal of the townspeople to help.
--Dwight Eisenhower loved the film and frequently screened it in the White House.
--Bill Clinton cited "High Noon" as his favorite film and screened it a record 17 times at the White House.

"Rio Bravo" (made by John Wayne) though still a masterpiece of American cinema, never had such an effect. On a side note, John Wayne actively supported blacklisting so he did not appreciate the critique of McCarthyism.

"Rio Bravo" was made by John Wayne as a conservative response to "High Noon" because he stated the latter was the most "un-American thing I've ever seen in my whole life".

This is in reference to the townspeople in "High Noon" refusing to help the Marshal because of their fear of the villains. In "Rio Bravo" the sheriff is in a very similar situation except he is surrounded by allies: his deputy, a young gunslinger, an old man, a Mexican innkeeper, the innkeeper's wife and an attractive young woman. The Sheriff repeatedly turns down aid from others because they are not "professionals".

The portrayal in "High Noon" is much more realistic because Marshal Will Kane represents a true leader: one who stands up courageously to defend his society and the interests of his people even when his constituents don't think he is doing so.

Though quaint, the "Rio Bravo" portrayal of this situation is much too idealistic. Everyone in the society is courageous and willing to fight off the dangerous villains even when the Sheriff does not want them to. Realistically, they would be afraid and look to their leader to save them because he has the courage they do not--which is why he is the Sheriff in the first place! Sheriff John Chance is a bad portrayal of a leader because even when basically everyone offers him help of any kind, he is pigheaded enough to say that they are not qualified enough to help him fight off the villains.

Thus "High Noon" had a much larger legacy and impact than "Rio Bravo" and also is more accurate in its portrayal of society and the values represented by a leader.

Note this: I will now be scrambling to finish up my numerous college applications by 1/1/12 so I might give my response last minute...sorry if that happens, but I hope you understand.
nerdykiller

Con

Thank You for you arguments!

One thing right off the bat that I want to mention is that you should site your resources.
Some of your information is from wikipedia, then site it by giving a link.
EX. Rio Bravo
http://en.wikipedia.org...
(This is truly important.)

I shall begin.

*Rebuttal*

Before I begin I am going to list out the achievements or success that gave the reputations to Gary Cooper and John Wayne. The information will be from what TheGreatFatsby has provided with more information brought to you by me.

Gary Cooper
-received five Academy Award nominations for Best Actor, winning twice for "Sergeant York" and you guessed it, "High Noon"
-Honorary Award in 1961 for his motion picture achievements.
-American Film Institute's list of Top 25 Male Actors ("AFI's 100 Years…100 Stars"
-Cooper ranks 11th
-AFI's 100 Years…100 Heroes and Villains, which he ranked 5th.
-Hollywood Walk of Fame
-Western Performers Hall of Fame

John Wayne
-the biggest box office draw of all time
-starring in 142 movies
-nominated for Best Actor three times and won once for his performance in "True Grit".
-no Honorary Academy Award.
-AFI's Top 25 Male Actors, at 13th
-AFI's 100 Years…100 Heroes and Villains, which he ranked 36th.
-An enduring American icon, even recognized by United States Congress.
-help created the Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, which even Gary Cooper became part of.
-U.S. government by awarding him the two highest civilian decorations.
-Congressional Gold Medal
-was awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Jimmy Carter.

-Hollywood figures and American leaders from across the political spectrum, including Maureen O'Hara, Elizabeth Taylor, Frank Sinatra, Mike Frankovich, Katharine Hepburn, General and Mrs. Omar Bradley, Gregory Peck, Robert Stack, James Arness, and Kirk Douglas, testified to Congress of the merit and deservedness of this award.

-Most notable was the testimony of Robert Aldrich, then president of the Directors Guild of America, who said:

"It is important for you to know that I am a registered Democrat and, to my knowledge, share none of the political views espoused by Duke. However, whether he is ill disposed or healthy, John Wayne is far beyond the normal political sharp shooting in this community. Because of his courage, his dignity, his integrity, and because of his talents as an actor, his strength as a leader, his warmth as a human being throughout his illustrious career, he is entitled to a unique spot in our hearts and minds. In this industry, we often judge people, sometimes unfairly, by asking whether they have paid their dues. John Wayne has paid his dues over and over, and I'm proud to consider him a friend and am very much in favor of my Government recognizing in some important fashion the contribution that Mr. Wayne has made."

-Even has an airport "John Wayne Airport" located in Orange County, California.
-At the airport there is a nine-foot bronze statue of him stands at the entrance.
-Arnold Schwarzenegger and First Lady Maria Shriver inducted Wayne into the California Hall of Fame, located at The California Museum for History, Women and the Arts.
-The producer of "The Alamo"
-Wayne won a Golden Globe Award for his performance in "True Grit".

Summary.
The argument between Gary Cooper and John Wayne might be tough at first, but as you start to learn about both characters, you learn that John Wayne is better in many ways.
Yes, Gary Cooper have won awards or ranked in AFI's 100 Years…100 Heroes and Villains, but John Wayne did the same and won many awards.
While Gary Cooper was an actor, John Wayne was an actor and a producer.
When it comes to cultural influence, John Wayne wins hands down.
From all the information I have provided previously on the list, you can know that John Wayne has been a greater influence in our culture.

2. Again please state your source.
Since a movie did not achieve any award does not mean the movie was horrible in any ways.
The IMDb rates "High Noon" 8.2, while "Rio Bravo" is 8.1; both rate are pretty close.
"Rio Bravo" was an amazing movie that had a great influence in the culture and had a greater plot line than 'High Noon"

3. The situation of someone standing alone facing evil, doesn't just make the film realistic. In "Rio Bravo" we can see the protagonist stand with allies, this isn't any unrealistic than the situation in "High Noon".
What is wrong about people wanting to help in order to fight evil?
There is a saying that goes something like this...
"Two heads are better than one."
What "High Noon " shows when there is only one facing danger it shows how weak the structure of the town is, when always like that. In "Rio Bravo" you can see the people actually fighting together.

I feel that I gave arguments as I went on the process of giving rebuttal.

Lastly I will give a summary.
The contrast between Gary Cooper and John Wayne is great in many ways whether it be the awards John achieved more than Gary, the things that John did during his life like creating a movie or help created the Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, which even Gary Cooper became part of, and the John Wayne's influence of cultural wise over weighs Gary's influence. Since a movie has gained awards, it doesn't automatically make that movie the best , since different people have different opinion. The rankings are always changing in the movie industry. The meaning of the movies are debatable, but you can see that there is a greater benefit in the meaning of standing together with your allies against the evil, standing alone.

Overall "Rio Bravo" is better than "High Noon".
Thank you and I await my opponents response.

Resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.imdb.com...
http://www.imdb.com...
Debate Round No. 2
TheGreatFatsby

Pro

1.1"When it comes to cultural influence, John Wayne wins hands down." While it is true that John Wayne was more politically active than Gary Cooper, based on all the evidence I presented in Round 2, Cooper was a better actor, not more of a cultural icon. Thus all of Wayne's humanitarian and cultural accomplishments are not relevant to the discussion.

Regardless of the awards and achievements Cooper enjoyed that Wayne did not, on the AFI's list of Top 25 Male Actors, Cooper ranks 11th whereas Wayne ranks 13th.

Also, I was stipulating that not only was Cooper a better actor than Wayne, but his acting in "High Noon" was better than Wayne's in "Rio Bravo". This is evidenced by the fact that he won the Academy Award for Best Actor for that performance when Wayne was not even nominated for his performance in "Rio Bravo".

Thus,
Gary Cooper > John Wayne (acting) and your rebuttal to my argument 1 and your summary are mainly superfluous in the context of this debate.

1.2"Since a movie did not achieve any award does not mean the movie was horrible in any ways." That was not my point. I was not saying "Rio Bravo" was bad, just that "High Noon" was better. This is evidenced by the awards won and recognition attained by "High Noon" when "Rio Bravo" received no such recognition.

Your stating that "High Noon" was rated 8.2 on IMDb and "Rio Bravo" 8.1 would only support my argument. However, aggregate film review sites such as IMDb, Megacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes cannot really be taken into account because of the large unprofessional influence (any person can give ratings), and that is why I left them out in the first place. When it came to the only professional film industry (AFI), "High Noon" ranks very high among the best movies of all time whereas "Rio Bravo" is not even recognized on this list.

1.3"What is wrong about people wanting to help in order to fight evil?"
Nothing, I am only saying that "High Noon" more realistically portrayed society when confronted with extreme danger.

In reality, precious few people will be courageous enough to rise up to the call of duty. As portrayed in the movie, most people will either be too afraid or too cynical to do anything about the danger. This is evidenced in the church scene where the Marshal is trying to raise a posse to fight the villains. Some people originally volunteer but the rest of the townsfolk start calling into the question the whole premise of the issue, instead of accepting the situation and trying to make the best of it. In fact, the only people willing to help are the town drunkard and a 16 year old boy—basically the people who are too na�ve or have avoided the machinations of politics.

"Rio Bravo" glorifies society and says lots of people would be more than happy to help in this situation. This is unrealistic because normal citizens would be too afraid or simply not disposed to fight off attackers. That is why armies are raised and sheriffs and marshals are appointed.

"Since a movie has gained awards, it doesn't automatically make that movie the best , since different people have different opinion. The rankings are always changing in the movie industry."

It might not make it the best, but any reasonable person will agree that a movie that has received the awards "High Noon" has, is better than a movie like "Rio Bravo" that has received none. The rankings might change, but "High Noon" has improved 6 places in the top movies of all time (from 33 to 27) between 1998 and 2007. "Rio Bravo", on the other hand, has not even been featured on any of these lists, much less won smaller awards.

And yes, it is nicer to think everyone would stand together in face of danger but that is simply not true.

Thus, "High Noon" was better than "Rio Bravo" in acting, overall cinematic worth and also in accurately portraying society in times of extreme danger.

Resources—same as yours:
http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://www.imdb.com......
http://www.imdb.com......
nerdykiller

Con

Thank you for your argument.

Rebuttals

"1.1"When it comes to cultural influence, John Wayne wins hands down." While it is true that John Wayne was more politically active than Gary Cooper, based on all the evidence I presented in Round 2, Cooper was a better actor, not more of a cultural icon. Thus all of Wayne's humanitarian and cultural accomplishments are not relevant to the discussion."
-In round 2 you have stated "Better actors/acting, mainly Gary Cooper being better than John Wayne." well I promise you Gary Cooper is not better than John Wayne. You wrote "Better actors", but the next sentence you wrote "While "Rio Bravo" had a very strong cast, "High Noon" simply outclassed it almost entirely with regards to the cast." You used the word outclassed and better actor. John Wayne outclasses Gary Cooper anyday. Both are pretty good actors, but when you see that they are a pretty even match against each other, you need to look into the actor's life and what they did. When you said "Better actor" it can mean one is better at acting or it can mean one actor is better than the other. You can look at this from two points of views.
Outclass-
to surpass in excellence or quality
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Actor-
a person who acts
http://dictionary.reference.com...

"Gary Cooper > John Wayne (acting) and your rebuttal to my argument 1 and your summary are mainly superfluous in the context of this debate."
It is a part of this debate since we are talking about who is the superior actor. We all know that the definition is a person who acts. The definition says a person, that is what we are debating about in this argument. When you wrote a better actor, you have stated that this person is better than that person. In that case John Wayne was far a better person and "actor" than Gary Cooper.

"Your stating that "High Noon" was rated 8.2 on IMDb and "Rio Bravo" 8.1 would only support my argument. However, aggregate film review sites such as IMDb, Megacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes cannot really be taken into account because of the large unprofessional influence (any person can give ratings), and that is why I left them out in the first place. When it came to the only professional film industry (AFI), "High Noon" ranks very high among the best movies of all time whereas "Rio Bravo" is not even recognized on this list."
My satingof the ratings on IMB can only help me more, since what my point was that the ratings are pretty close. This is a point I believe I have proved, which is that the movies are pretty close. You can'tjust say a movie review website is unpofesional since if you can allow the use of Wikidpedia, which is a resource website that can be edited by anyone who pleases.

To your 1.3 argument or rebuttal all I can say is that people helping each oth and standing aginst evil is what we grew up knowing. "In reality, precious few people will be courageous enough to rise up to the call of duty." So do you have any evidence to back this up? Because there ia huge evidence to back, Rio Bravo's decision. The evidence is America itself. America in the beginnning was weak, but as times passed the people had to group up togther to fight for their beliefs. the American people themselves had to stand up toghter, rather tha having only one person standing up to fight for what he or she thought was true. Since there was many people willing to start a revoluntion and more willing to fight once it began togther won the war and gained freedom for the people.

"And yes, it is nicer to think everyone would stand together in face of danger but that is simply not true."
This is simply true , unless you want to state that the America was wwon by person only. Tomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Georege Washington, and the people won the war togther , not by standiong alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Summary

Through looking at the actors themselves we can see that the actors are prety close in acting, but John Wayne has the higher grounds for being more "was more politically active than Gary Cooper" as our Pro stated in beginning of round 3. The movie ratings too were pretty close. The reaity that is given by Rio Bravo can be supported with evidence then High Noon's.





Debate Round No. 3
TheGreatFatsby

Pro

1.1"In round 2 you have stated "Better actors/acting, mainly Gary Cooper being better than John Wayne." well I promise you Gary Cooper is not better than John Wayne."

All the evidence I provided in Round 2 refutes this statement.

"John Wayne outclasses Gary Cooper anyday. Both are pretty good actors, but when you see they are a pretty even match against each other, you need to look into the actor's life and what they did."

First off, in what universe do you measure acting talent by social achievements?! And aside from that, I have already clearly shown that Gary Cooper is considered a better actor than John Wayne—especially by professionals in the film industry.

"When you wrote a better actor, you have stated that this person is better than that person. In that case John Wayne was far a better person and "actor" than Gary Cooper."

That's incorrect. When I say someone is a "better actor" I am saying that his acting and ONLY acting is better than the other's. In the English language, you do not simply separate every word in a sentence and use it how you wish. The adjective "better" is being used to describe the acting of the "actor". There are rules for grammar and using phrases "in context" that you have failed to follow in your misinterpretation of my sentence, so your point completely moot.

"My satingof the ratings on IMB can only help me more, since what my point was that the ratings are pretty close. This is a point I believe I have proved, which is that the movies are pretty close. You can'tjust say a movie review website is unpofesional since if you can allow the use of Wikidpedia, which is a resource website that can be edited by anyone who pleases."

I will ignore all the typographical and grammatical errors you made there even though I should really disregard this statement because of them. First off, ratings can be "close" but that does not mean one movie is not better than the other. If they had the same score, then you might have had something; but they do not.

And Wikipedia articles are constantly reviewed, edited and re-edited by experts to ensure the legitimacy and quality of the article. In fact, just try saying something incorrect on a Wikipedia article. It usually gets taken down within an hour. On film review sites however, even a 7-year-old who has not seen a movie, can make an account and give the movie any rating he or she wants. Any reasonable will agree that this cannot be used as solid evidence because while errors on Wikipedia articles can be edited and corrected, a horrible movie rating given by someone who is not an expert cannot be taken down.

"To your 1.3 argument or rebuttal all I can say is that people helping each oth and standing aginst evil is what we grew up knowing."

That is definitely not what I grew up knowing and that means nothing here anyway.

"Because there ia huge evidence to back, Rio Bravo's decision. The evidence is America itself. America in the beginnning was weak, but as times passed the people had to group up togther to fight for their beliefs."

First off, not everyone in America stood up against Britain. The Founding Fathers were some of those "precious few" I referenced earlier, who have the courage to commit whast was then treason for their beliefs. Other examples would be the soldiers who enlisted in the American army. However, many were afraid that they would lose the war and didn't support the revolution. In fact, many wanted the King of England to remain in control of the colonies…they were called "Loyalists". There were also people who were afraid to side with either group, called "Neutrals". Many characters in "High Noon" exactly parallel this. The same goes for several other revolutions, namely the French Revolution which had a VERY strong opposition in the populace.

"the American people themselves had to stand up toghter, rather tha having only one person standing up to fight for what he or she thought was true."

"This is simply true , unless you want to state that the America was wwon by person only. Tomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Georege Washington, and the people won the war togther , not by standiong alone."

"High Noon" is not saying that only one person is courageous. Gary Cooper symbolizes both the government and the armed forces of a country. They should know what is best for the country and fight to protect the country's interests, even when the people don't realize it is for their own good and as a result oppose their decision.

And the Founding Fathers were actually a huge minority at the time, though they represent what eventually became the government of the USA. As I said earlier, many people opposed their decision.

I am sorry but your summary is pretty incomprehensible, to be honest. I have trouble understanding exactly what you are trying to get across in that last sentence.

Summary

Based on the aforementioned evidence, Gary Cooper was a better actor than John Wayne. This, as well as my point about the supporting cast in Round 2, which my opponent failed to address, cements my statement that the acting in "High Noon" was much better than in "Rio Bravo". "High Noon" "High Noon" won many awards and accolades, whereas "Rio Bravo" won none. "High Noon" is also widely recognized as one of the best films of all time: it is ranked #27 on the AFI list of top 100 films...."Rio Bravo" is not even on that list. Thus, "High Noon" was better cinematically. Finally, "High Noon" has a more accurate portrayal of society in times of extreme danger. As such, "High Noon" is better than "Rio Bravo".

Thank you to my opponent Nerdykiller for giving me such a great first debate on this site. I hope to debate you further in the future. Thanks to all for following/voting!
nerdykiller

Con

Thank You for a wonderful debate. :D Glad to be at your service.
I have some sad news.
Because of lack of time for me to write the argument I think I will forfeit. :P
Maybe next time.
Right now I am way to busy with scripts for Speech and Debate... :C
So good job!
This is your first win!
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
What are Rio Bravo and High Noon?
Posted by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
Seen Rio Bravo, not High Noon.
Posted by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
I've heard Rio Bravo mentioned before, but never High Noon. They seem like obscure and unknown movies.
Posted by TheGreatFatsby 5 years ago
TheGreatFatsby
Are you kidding me?! They're two of the best Western films and staples of the film industry! Plus, you have 6 and a half days! rent/stream them online!
Posted by Micromann 5 years ago
Micromann
Like the two below me, I've seen neither,
Posted by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
lol, I've never seen any of these movies.
Posted by NStillings 5 years ago
NStillings
I wish I could accept your challenge, but I have not seen either movie and have no intention to.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
TheGreatFatsbynerdykillerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
TheGreatFatsbynerdykillerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: As much as I want con to win (because I am a big John Wayne fan, hence my profile picture), it was a pretty even debate except that con had one forfeit. But I have seen Rio Bravo twice and have never heard of High noon, so I might have to give it a second thought.