The Instigator
TheMysticalPotato
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dustryder
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should singers be banned from AGT or BGT or any of the "Got talent" shows

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2016 Category: TV
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 969 times Debate No: 89476
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

TheMysticalPotato

Pro

America's got Talent (I use this because all the other "talent" shows originated from the one that started in America) has been around now for 10 years. In those years, many acts have come and gone. We've seen magicians, dancers, silhouettes, singers, and much more. Now I don't watch it on a regular basis but I used to at a time. I remember, a lot, when I watched that there were more singers than other acts. Also more singers won at the end than other acts. Out of the 10 season there have been, and the eleventh starting soon, 6 of the winners have been singers. That's 60 percent of all time!

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.
dustryder

Con

To summarize Pro's arguments: There are too many singers. They draw away the limelight from other acts they only have talent shows to perform on while singers get a huge selection of shows.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
TheMysticalPotato

Pro

Sorry it took so long to reply. I've been busy with my school and music. Plus it was hard to come up with a reply considering you didn't really address my main points so let me try to be more clear.

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.
dustryder

Con

Ignoring the redefinition of the debate, the number of shows open to other acts is not just one. Which you yourself have pointed out in the last paragraph. My statement "Removing singers from talent shows could have an unforeseen effect on the success of such shows." was in regard to the fact that as you've rightly pointed out, there are a lot of well known singing-based talent shows. Equally there are few well known talent shows. Therefore singing is a successful component of reality talent tv shows and it's removal in GT shows could result in a loss for viewership as one example. Regardless if you're claiming that I said that the show would be popular regardless, you should probably have a reread.

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?
Debate Round No. 2
TheMysticalPotato

Pro

I would like to just start out by saying that in my last paragraph that in my last paragraph the only other show I stated was Dancing with the Stars. There are little to no dancers, I'm talking about ballroom dancers, on the "got talent" dhows. You say that the GT shows might might lose viewers if singers were removed, and you're not completely wrong too. It still would be a huge amount. I've been asking some friends and the occasional stranger if they would be fine with singers removed. Most, of course, just said they didn't care but out of the seven that answers only two said they weren't fine with that. I know this is a small scale but it's only 29% of people that would stop watching. It really wouldn't hurt too badly. Als, yes, I reread it and you did say the show is popular regardless. Second paragraph, near the end.

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.
dustryder

Con

So it would be more accurate to say that there are little to no ballroom dancers on such shows rather than dancers in general. In which case my reply would be: so what? There are little to no yodelers on such shows. Does this mean singing is an under represented category in talent shows? No it only means the specific subtype is under represented. Dancing has a healthy representation on talent shows.

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
Debate Round No. 3
TheMysticalPotato

Pro

TheMysticalPotato forfeited this round.
dustryder

Con

dustryder forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
TheMysticalPotato

Pro

TheMysticalPotato forfeited this round.
dustryder

Con

dustryder forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.