Stanley Kubrick was the greatest film director of the later half of the 20th century
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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?
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'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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sherlockholmesfan2798 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
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.