The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Reality shows create excitement among people, it is a good way of entertainment.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 8/26/2009 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,440 times Debate No: 9339
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Reality shows, like Big brother, American idol, Americas next top model, dancing with the stars, so you think you can dance etc. are entertaining and a platform for those who have been slogging for a career. its a brilliant way of


Hello there,

I'm pleased that my first debate on this site will be with someone else who is just starting out too. Good luck to you :)

As I see it, you've made two claims: 1. Reality shows are a good means of entertainment; and 2. Reality shows are a good way of furthering one's career. I will address them in that order.

1. I contend that reality TV is not a good means of entertainment, for several reasons. Firstly, it is degrading to individuals. These shows are often accused, by media analysts and critics, of being set up for the purpose of humiliating their contestants for the cheap entertainment of the masses, and I personally have to agree. Think about it honestly. These shows aren't just giving people a shot at success, they're publicly advertising the failures of the majority of contestants, such as the failed attempts of people auditioning for Idol. Shows like Big Brother deliberately provoke disputes between housemates on a regular basis for the satisfaction of viewers.

If you want an insight into the human condition I recommend you read Shakespeare or Sophocles, some moral philosophy, or papers on the findings of modern psychology. Reality TV gives people the sense that they're gaining a glimpse into the human condition but in fact they're watching other people inevitably embarrass themselves so they can feel better about their own imperfect lives. Reality TV is hardly representative of actual reality, it deliberately brings out the worst in people in unrealistic circumstances.

Reality TV is also a heavily exploited medium for subtle advertising. Product placement on reality TV shows is a multi-billion dollar industry. Source:

I personally feel that reality TV is effectively 'dumbing-down' our society as a whole. It's bad enough in my country of Australia, but I imagine it's quite a lot worse in the US. If you ask random people on the street, I'm willing to bet more people will be able to tell you the winners of the past few seasons of Big Brother than can give you any information about current major world events. I even bet that around the time of an election more people will be able to name the final few remaining contestants on a variety of reality TV shows running at the time than could name the potential leaders for their country, let alone describe their positions on various issues.

2. Reality shows are an unreliable and unrealistic way of launching one's career. I will give a few examples of circumstances in which contestants were deliberately misled during their participation in their respective shows.

- The winner of the first season of America's Next Top Model, Adrianne Curry, claimed during an interview that all contestants were repeatedly promised a huge cosmetics deal with Revlon, including billboard and magazine photo shoots, if they won. After winning the competition, Adrianne says she was shortchanged and only offered minor convention work, and that the said cosmetics deal with Revlon was signed to someone else. Source listed below:

- The show 'A Shot At Love With Tila Tequila' was advertised as a platform for a group of men and women to compete for a legitimate monogamous relationship with the internet celebrity commonly known as Tila Tequila who was portrayed as "looking for love". However, there has been speculation that Tila Tequila already had a boyfriend and was participating in the show as a ploy to further her singing career. Bobby Banhart, the winner of the first season, publicly stated that the show was fake, posting on his MySpace blog: "well everyone wants to know so here it is she never called me after the last show and no one would give me her number so pretty much I feel like and a**...". Following the show Tila Tequila released a CD entitled 'Sex', featuring popular singles 'I love U' and 'Paralyze', as well as a self help book entitled "Hooking Up with Tila Tequila: A Guide to Love, Fame, Happiness, Success, and Being the Life of the Party". She has been criticized since, accused of deliberately falsely staging dating shows for the sole purpose of furthering her career. Sources are listed below:

While I concede there are certainly examples of reality TV show success stories, it seems to me that these shows are clearly not set up for the purpose of being, as you said, "a platform for those who have been slogging for a career". These shows humiliating, cheap entertainment, and are set up for purposes primarily other than for the benefit of the contestants and are therefore both not good forms of entertainment, but also unrealistic avenues for realistic and successful careers.
Debate Round No. 1


aarshiata forfeited this round.


I'm willing to pass on this round since my opponent missed the opportunity to make a reply :)
Debate Round No. 2


aarshiata forfeited this round.


It's unfortunate that my opponent didn't propose any arguments in the opening message and then forfeited both subsequent rounds, especially given that it was my first debate and I was looking forward to a lively exchange :(

I believe, given the circumstances, I have to win by default on conduct, convincing arguments and sources unfortunately. I want to suggest that I should also win on spelling and grammar given by the mere fact alone that I consistently capitalized the names of shows and that I didn't end any posts mid-sentence. Agreeing before/after the debate I leave completely to voter discretion.

To my opponent: If you wish to restart the debate at a later point when you've got more free time to participate properly I'd be more than willing :)

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Realist 7 years ago
Could someone please quickly read this debate (it shouldn't take more than a few minutes) and cast a vote?

It's frustrating that my opponent opened with a handful of lines and then forfeited every subsequent round, yet the debate is counted as a 'draw' because no votes have been cast :/

Thank you for your time.
Posted by tBoonePickens 8 years ago
I can't stand most reality shows! Why do people need a show about reality? Don't they already live in reality? Isn't the whole purpose of watching a show to escape reality? I dunnno.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by silntwaves 7 years ago
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:06