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

Stanley Kubrick was the greatest film director of the later half of the 20th century

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2015 Category: Movies
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 548 times Debate No: 77640
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Hello, I am new to, and hope someone accepts to challenge me in this debate. My argument is that Stanley Kubrick was the greatest film director of the later 20th century. Of course this is all a matter of opinion.


Welcome to DDO, Pro!

In order to affirm the resolution, Pro must demonstrate that Stanley Kubrik was the greatest film director of the later 20th century. As Con, I must show that Pro's affirmation is insufficient.

I will provide a definition that I think fits Pro's intentions.

Greatest: superlative form of Great.
Great: notable; remarkable; exceptionally outstanding.[1]

Debate Round No. 1


Correct. Stanley Kubrick not only changed the structure of film, he also transformed the way people were supposed to see films. He made it where people had to think about the film and whatever conclusion they came to it could be correct. In my opinion Stanley Kubrick did more for film than anyone else did in the later half of the 20th century.


Pro's made several statements, but has not sufficiently linked those statements with the resolution.

Pro hasn't established objective criteria for greatness. He lists some things that he believes make a director the greatest, but he's given us no reason to accept his beliefs as true. In both of his rounds, he even went so far as to admit that his claims are opinion. Why should we accept his opinion when determining criteria for greatness? What if I claimed that the opposites of Kubrick's qualities were what made a director great? My opinion would be as legitimate as Pro's, and neither would be real evidence.

Pro says, "Stanley Kubrick...changed the structure of film..." Why does this make him great? Why should this even be considered good? What if I hate that he changed the structure?

Pro says, "...he also transformed the way people were supposed to see films." Why should we consider this a good thing?

Whether Kubrick "did more for film" or not, how does Pro link this to greatness?
Debate Round No. 2


My criteria for greatness in this debate would be how much someone has helped the cinema. How I link what Kubrick did for film (transforming it) to greatness is that he has helped expand the movie going audience, and brought a more intellectual side to film making, which in my opinion is part of the reason why he is great, because it expands audience, which does more for the cinema.
Also he another thing that made him a great filmmaker was how relentless he was at making a film. If you pay attention there is obsessive details to almost everything, form the acting to the character background to the lighting. Why is that great? Well in my opinion caring that much for something, and being well received at the same time is what I describe to be great.
I would like to thank my opponent, who has provided an excellent challenge. Thank you.
Also who do you consider the best film maker of the latter half of the 20th century?


Pro states that his criteria for greatness is "how much someone has helped the cinema." He doesn't establish why we should accept that criteria as preeminent to opposing criteria. He doesn't establish that Kubrick has "helped" more than other directors, only alleging that he has helped to some degree, which would, even by Pro's criteria, only make Kubrick "great", but not "greatest". He alleges that Kubrick expanded the movie audience and "brought a more intellectual side to film making", but doesn't support these allegations with evidence, and still doesn't show why these should be accepted as objectively great.

Pro's arguments come down to opinion, as he admits several times. Unfortunately for Pro, opinion is not enough to affirm the resolution. Pro needed to establish criteria for greatness in the debate setup, or establish objective criteria thereafter, but neither was done. The resolution remains unsupported. I have successfully negated Pro's case.

Thanks, Pro. Thanks, voters.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: I-AM-AWESOME// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Con was an ***.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The arguments, S&G, and source points remain completely unexplained by this voter. (2) This insinuates that something that was stated by Con was so heinous that Pro deserved all the points, yet the voter doesn't clarify what was said. (3) The standard for a conduct vote requires more than just a generalized view that someone was being rude. This voter has to do more to justify this vote.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: 64bithuman// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded. I'm disappointment this debate somehow morphed into semantics. Con presents a somewhat rude and somewhat nonsensical argument. Pro doesn't present much hard proof; short answers, no sources. "Pro says, "Stanley Kubrick...changed the structure of film..." Why does this make him great? Why should this even be considered good? What if I hate that he changed the structure?" That's not a proper challenge, that's just some circular tautology. It's the call for universal relativity and it ignores subjectivity - you say why you don't like it, and he does the opposite and we judge the answers. You can't just produce this hidden ace and expect to win. However, Con is correct in saying that Pro did not sufficiently back up his arguments. I think Pro came for a friendly debate about Stanley Kubrick and I'm disappointed Con decided to make it a lesson in technicality.

[*Reason for removal*] While the arguments vote is sufficiently explained, the source vote remains unexplained. The lack of sources on Pro's part does not justify a source vote for Con. As Con's sole source is a dictionary reference, it doesn't bolster his case, and shouldn't be treated as though it does. Merely having a source where Pro is not sufficient reason to give these points to Con.
Posted by doomswatter 1 year ago
64bithuman, this is a debate, not a discussion. "Greatness" is not debatable unless it is given criteria in the opening round. Whether Kubrick "helped expand the movie going audience" is debatable. Whether he did so more than other directors is debatable. Whether these things make him "great" or "the greatest" is not debatable without criteria. Pro repeatedly admitted that he was stating his opinion. The resolution is a statement of fact, and opinion can not be used to establish fact.

You can't objectively say, "Almond Joy is better than Mounds because it has nuts." Obviously, whether nuts make an Almond Joy "better" is subjective without criteria, and is not debatable. The only way to make such a statement debatable is if you qualify the resolution with criteria, by saying something like, "For the purposes of this debate, a food can be considered 'better' if it containers more nutrients." Now, "better" is debatable, because nutrient levels are debatable. Similarly, if Pro had led with, "For the purposes of this debate, a director is 'greatest' if he has done more to expand movie audiences than his peers," his resolution would have become debatable, because audience expansion is debatable.

I know what Pro wanted to debate, but his resolution and setup relegated his side of the argument to the realm of opinion. If I had humored Pro and argued against Stanley Kubrick, voters would have been left deciding which debater's opinions were the best opinions.

Besides the doomed resolution, if Pro had wanted a serious debate, he probably should have set the character count higher than 1,000.
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
Pro forfeited this round
Pro forfeited this round
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sherlockholmesfan2798 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly established how Pro didn't necessarily prove Stanley Kubrick was the best. He simply stated opinion, without any direct examples. Pro's inability to prove this, makes Con the winner.