Should singers be banned from AGT or BGT or any of the "Got talent" shows
Debate Rounds (5)
Now that may not sound like a lot but you have to consider this small truth. If you enter a competition that you work extremely hard at and you're seen by millions of people, you'd probably want to win of course. But then you realize that you only have a 40% chance of winning because that one other person is just more popular. Now I know that was a bad example but I just wanted to show that other acts, who aren't singers, will only get a 40% chance of winning because of the extremely large population of singers.
Also singers get it really easy on AGT. So many times they have received the golden buzzer, meanwhile a magician never has.. NEVER. (or at least I've never seen or read it happen before) Now, I don't despise singers or anything, I just think they should be on a different show. There are so many other shows out there for singers to be on and instead they decide to come and infest AGT and usually win. Ok, maybe they shouldn't completely remove singers, but at least keep their population down to like oh I don't know.. 5 or 6. Like only about a fifth of all the contestants.
Now I'm sure that many people are thinking that this is a horrible idea and that the show is literally called AMERICAS GOT TALENT but, this is also the only other show for other acts to show what they can do. I just think that if there were less singers on the show, then there would be more on the other million shows out there ACTUALLY for singers and we would see more amazing talent on AGT.
This is my first debate started on this site so I'm not sure if I did everything correctly. Obviously, feel free to share your thoughts.. kinda why I posted this.
However I think pro has failed to demonstrate why this should constitute a ban on singers. Let's start with some facts. Televised competitions, while at some level do provide opportunities for their participants, are primarily there for the the entertainment of viewers. If this were not the case there would hardly be the need for the rigmarole of sorting and editing through footage. It would be far easier to have a private jury package a winning entry off to vegas. Which leads to my first and second points. Firstly, if participants are not the primary motivation for the existence of such talent shows then considerations of non-singer success rates are completely irrelevant given the show is popular regardless. Secondly, singers are a popular sub-category of talent. The continued existence of singing based competition shows is the irrefutable evidence of this. Removing singers from talent shows could have an unforeseen effect on the success of such shows.
Thirdly I think pro has overstated the importance of winning talent shows. Case in point, Susan Boyle.
Pro has also claimed that there would be more amazing talent on talent shows if singing was removed. Talent does not always equal entertainment or offer sustainability for a televised talent show. Case in point, Mr. Methane
Finally my overarching argument that pro mentioned himself is that talent shows are about talent. Singing is a talent. Therefore singing should not be banned from talent shows.
You say I've failed to demonstrate why there should be a ban. As I said before, maybe a ban is too far but drastically lower the singing categories limit would be beneficial. Also the number of shows open to singers is enormous compared to the ONE for other acts. In your first paragraph you are basically saying that I think singers are untalented. Also you state that, "Removing singers from talent shows could have an unforeseen effect on the success of such shows." What unforeseen event would that be? The downfall of talent shows? The loss of spectators? You said yourself that the show is popular regardless. Saying that it will fall, then saying it will be popular regardless don't make much sense together.
While on that note, spectators could just easily change the channel to American Idol, (there are rumors that it will return) The X Factor, The Voice, or any other show that is out there just for singers. Now you say I "overstated" the importance of winning talent shows. It is actually very important for some people. Singers, not so much because they can just go to a different show and compete. Other acts don't get this luxury. Sure, they can try to get back into the talent show but when they say your name on the roster twice, you are less likely to get in again to make room for other acts to come through.
Now, yes I did say that there would be more amazing talent because there would be more room. if singers were removed, or heck just diminished, we could see more people and more acts. I am NOT saying that singers are untalented or anything, I am just saying that with more room we would see other acts instead. You also mentioned a couple times that it is a talent show and singing is a talent. Yes, it is, but what I'm trying to get at here is that there are many other shows out there for singers and only one for other acts. Let the singers go to those shows, while everyone else stays in the talent shows. Heck, dancers know what to do. Honestly, how often do you see a dancer in a got talent show? I'm not talking about dancing and singing or silhouettes. I'm talking about actual ballroom dancing. They go to Dancing with the Stars for their talent.
Spectators could easily just change the channel yes and in a naive sense the removal of singers wouldn't make a difference. On the other-hand that only works if you equivalate the shows. In reality the shows have different formats and the networks need viewership. Of course this isn't a reason why singers should be banned.
Your claim "Sure, they can try to get back into the talent show but when they say your name on the roster twice, you are less likely to get in again to make room for other acts to come through." is conjecture. To add to that, it's only relevant if winning is the only relevant outcome which clearly it is not. Of course this entire line of debate is rendered null by the fact that of the 5 previous seasons of AGT, only one of the winners has been a singer. Of the 5 previous seasons of BGT, only two of the winners were singers.
There is no guarruntee that removing singers would allow you to see more acts. On the assumption you've used "more" to mean "varied", the void left by the departed singers may as well be used up by dancers, in which case the problem goes back to square one. Not only that but the removal of singers in itself would make the show less varied.
Let's be honest here though. Is there a single argument for why singers should be removed from except from personal dissatisfaction with the format of the show?
I'm not sure if you're saying that I said singers should be removed because viewers can just change the channel? All I was saying there was if viewers wanted to hear and watch singers, all it would take is a click of the remote.
"Of course this entire line of debate is rendered null by the fact that of the 5 previous seasons of AGT, only one of the winners has been a singers." I looked at the record and your facts are wrong. Two of the previous five have been singers but out of the 10 seasons, in total, more than half were singers. I'm not sure about BGT simply because I don't watch that. Not being naive, I'm just focusing on AGT since I live in this god awful country. (Different argument for another time)
There is a guarantee that we would see more acts. Yes, I mean varied. If people try to enter something but all slots are taken, then suddenly, half of the people that already had a spot leave. The others that were in the que could join. Also, as I reiterated before, if they just significantly reduce singers to a fifth of the contestants the it would be more fair for other acts. Also funner for the audience. Instead of people predicting that a singer will win they can predict something else instead. Now, you're saying that it might be filled with dancers. True, but how many ballroom dancers do you see in GT? Like none. Also, key word "might." That means that it "might" be filled with magicians, comedians, or anything else. Even if it is dancers, they usually do a sillohete act or something else exciting.
I just want to say that they should lower the singing category count by a lot. Also they get a really easy time on the show while others don't. If they got a harder time and we're less of them then I would be happier.
I don't understand your "not completely wrong" line. Either I'm correct in saying that the loss of singers has the potential to disrupt a talent shows success or I'm not. This isn't a sliding scale. In which case there is a probably reason to not ban singers from talent shows. You must have missed the word "given", along with every other word in that sentence then.
I count a ventriloquist, a magician, dancer, a dog act and a singer which counts 1 out of 5 but eitherway this would show that the past 5 seasons are not singer dominant. It is true that the earlier seasons have more singer winners but I would argue that this shows that the show has developed to become tougher on singers which negates your point that singers have an easier time.
The removal of singers is not a guarantee that there will be more varied acts. The only guarantee is that there won't be any singers. You have as of yet failed to prove in any way that singers get an easier time. "Funner" is purely subjective. I fail to see your point with ballroom dancing. There are already magicians and comedians. The addition of more magicians and comedians is not variation.
Your objection to singers on talent shows seem to stem from personal distaste. Removing singers has the potential to cripple such shows. Definite downsides trump personal distastes, therefore singers shouldn't be removed from talent shows
TheMysticalPotato forfeited this round.
dustryder forfeited this round.
TheMysticalPotato forfeited this round.
dustryder forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.