The Instigator
4567TME
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Movie reviewers (film critics) are still very important today

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 5 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2013 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,293 times Debate No: 34727
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

4567TME

Pro

Some say that today, in the world of the Internet where everyone can cast their opinion that film critics/movie reviewers (which for the sake of this argument will be defined as people who consistently write essays detailing the sypnosis of a film, and their opinion on its value) are no longer relevant. I argue that this is not true, as the evaluation of art and its place in life to the writer that subjects the idea is still important. My opponent must be familiar with film criticism, and be against its existence in modern society.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate.

Film critics are not important, and are rather insignificant. We live in a universe that is 13.7 billion years old, and film critisim began January 17th 1912. This means that out of 13,700,000,000 years film critics have only been around for 100 years. Not only that, but they probably only have 100 years left as homo sapiens will probably be extinct by then.

"Homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years" - Professor Frank Fenner (http://news.nationalgeographic.com...)

The universe however will continue to exist for billions of years after that (if not forever). This means, that if you played a 2 hour movie of the universe's history, film critics would barely make a spec of a frame. Also, o
ur sun is only one star in a galaxy that contains hundreds of billions of stars, in a universe that contains hundreds of billions of galaxies (and this is just the observable universe).

Film critics are self-evidently not important. The resolution has been negated.
Debate Round No. 1
4567TME

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for participating.

"Film critics are not important, and are rather insignificant. We live in a universe that is 13.7 billion years old, and film critisim began January 17th 1912. This means that out of 13,700,000,000 years film critics have only been around for 100 years. Not only that, but they probably only have 100 years left as homo sapiens will probably be extinct by then... Professor Frank Fenner (http://news.nationalgeographic.com......) ...The universe however will continue to exist for billions of years after that (if not forever). This means, that if you played a 2 hour movie of the universe's history, film critics would barely make a spec of a frame. Also, our sun is only one star in a galaxy that contains hundreds of billions of stars, in a universe that contains hundreds of billions of galaxies (and this is just the observable universe). "
Gee, thanks for the history lesson. You could pretty much replace any field or historically limited information with "film critics" and have the same effect. It does not enhance your argument, it just shows that you don't know what you're talking about, and fill your box with facts insignificant to this debate.

Film critics are indeed important -- they show how we, as humans, took the art and creation of our fellow man seriously. If art isn't important to a society's impact, I don't know what is. Art, just as architecture or technology, is a sign of ambition and creativity.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"Gee, thanks for the history lesson. You could pretty much replace any field or historically limited information with "film critics" and have the same effect. It does not enhance your argument, it just shows that you don't know what you're talking about, and fill your box with facts insignificant to this debate."

Yes, any field is insignificant. The universe is going to do what it does, whether we are here or not. We are all insignifiticant. My facts were completely relavent, as it shows the size and scope or the universe and how insignificant we really are in it.

"Film critics are indeed important -- they show how we, as humans, took the art and creation of our fellow man seriously. If art isn't important to a society's impact, I don't know what is. Art, just as architecture or technology, is a sign of ambition and creativity."

You do not need a professional Film Critic to review films. You have given no argument that humans are significant; let alone film critics.
Debate Round No. 2
4567TME

Pro

You do not need a professional Film Critic to review films. You have given no argument that humans are significant; let alone film critics.
Humans are significant because we take the Earth -- which would otherwise be a bunch of wildlife, and turn it into a habitable place. Not only to we create conditions for ourselves, we create safe conditions for other creatures.

You do not need a professional Film Critic to review films.
And you do not need a professional chef to make food. You do not need a professional clergyman to pray, and you do not need a professional mailman to put things in mailboxes. Just because a job does not require extensive training, does not mean that it is pointless.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"Humans are significant because we take the Earth -- which would otherwise be a bunch of wildlife, and turn it into a habitable place. Not only to we create conditions for ourselves, we create safe conditions for other creatures."

This is circular reasoning. I asked what makes humans important, and the answer I got was that we have created conditions for ourselves. However, creating conditions for ourselves would only be considered important if it was presumed already that we are important enough to create conditions for. Thus, the above argument is circular and invalid. Also, we are left with no reason to think creatures are important.


"And you do not need a professional chef to make food. You do not need a professional clergyman to pray, and you do not need a professional mailman to put things in mailboxes. Just because a job does not require extensive training, does not mean that it is pointless."


Perhaps. However, this is switching the burden of proof. Pro has to show that film critics are important, or still important. I showed that all the things we think are important, probably really aren't considering our apparent insignificance (we take up virtually no time or space on a cosmic scale). Pro's stance was not supported properly. I, at least had some kind of warrant regarding the age and size of the universe to suggest that film critics are not important.

Conclusion

Conduct

Pro said "Gee, thanks for history lesson". This was necessary sarcasm that is not a good show of character. Also, he said "you don't know what you're talking about" which is a clear personal attack. Therefore, I urge a conduct vote to Con.

Arguments

My opponent's arguments were fallacious, and my argument was not sufficiently attacked. Therefore, arguments should go to Con.

Sources

I had a source, Pro did not. Thus, I believe source points to Con would be the most reasonable option.

---------------------------

I thank Pro for this debate.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by 4567TME 3 years ago
4567TME
@Ragnar
I believe I typed it in, but for some reason it didn't process.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Define important.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
4567TMERational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: con did argue that in the vast scope of the universe, something as menial as film critics are not that important at all, which is a very valid argument. Arguments go to con, and then countering 4 points from amelia's 5 point votebomb
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
4567TMERational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I hate people who think they are clever and funny.
Vote Placed by SlaterJ23 3 years ago
SlaterJ23
4567TMERational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was basically saying that even with the internet and everyone voicing their opinion film critics still have a place in the movie industry today. It is true because who cares what a 13 year old girl thought about twilight? Cons arguments about people surviving without critics doesnt really support the fact that they are still neccesary in the movie industry
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 3 years ago
HeartOfGod
4567TMERational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe humans are significant but pro did not meet his burden and he didn't argue well against con's arguments. Pro had no sources and personally attacked con.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
4567TMERational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Sure he used sarcasm, but can you really agree with the guy that says all humans are insignificant?