The Instigator
imabench
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Spritle
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

everybody likes to argue about their FAVORITE MOVIE!!!!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2011 Category: Arts
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,464 times Debate No: 18649
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

imabench

Con

Think of your favorite movie right now...... Now try to remember if you thought it should have won best picture the year it came out. Did it? Maybe it did but it probably didn't, but you think it should have won right?

Here's the deal, You argue why the movie ________________________ should have won the best picture award for the year it came out, And I will argue A) Why it shouldn't have won, and/or B) Why the movie that did win best picture deserved it more than the movie you chose :)

I will be the Con/Against, you will be the Pro/Con.

You may use Round 1 to pick your movie and begin arguing why it should have won.
Max characters and max rounds so get ready to defend your movie as much as possible.
Spritle

Pro

I wish my opponent the best of luck in this debate.

I chose Red Dawn as my favorite movie.

Red Dawn was released on August 10th, 1984 and was directed by John Milius. It was an American war film set in the 1980s in which the Soviet Union and it's Latin American allies invaded the United States of America [1].

Red Dawn should have won the "Best Picture" award for the following reasons:

The Cast:

The main cast of this movie was excellent. Consisting of Patrick Swayze, C. Thomas Howell, Lea Thompson, Charlie Sheen, and Jennifer Grey, this movie showed the true potential of these young actors. This cast is one of a kind and they all fit their specific role perfectly. This whole cast has been successful in multiple other films. For example, we see Swayze and Jennifer Grey together in Dirty Dancing. This low budget film became a massive box office hit. As of 2009, it earned over $214 million worldwide [2]. The Outsiders starred Swayze and Howell and was nominated for four "Young Artist Awards." Howell won the award for "Best Young Motion Picture Actor in a Feature Film." Lea Thompson won "Best Supporting Actress" in the 1987 film Some Kind of Wonderful, as well as "Favorite Movie Actress" in the 1989 film Back to the Future Part II[3]. Lastly, Charlie Sheen is most known for his role in Platoon. This 1986 war film won the "Best Picture Award" and was ranked number six in "Channel 4's 100 Greatest War Films" [4]. Sheen is always widely known for his role in "Two and a Half Men." Just this year a news article in The New York Times called it "the biggest hit comedy of the past decade" [5]. As we can see, all the actors in Red Dawn have had very successful and awarding careers in America's media. Therefore, Red Dawn's excellent cast shows that it is award material.

The Director:

John Milius is an American screenwriter, director, and producer of motion pictures. His most popular films that he worked on were Apocalypse Now, Conan the Barbarian, and Dirty Harry. Apocalypse Now won multiple awards including the Oscar award for "Best Cinematography" in 1980 and in 1979 won the "Palme d'Or" in the Cannes Film Festival [7]. The film was also deemed "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" and selected for preservation by the National Film Registry in 2001 [8]. Conan the Barbarian grossed more than $300 million by 2007 [9]. The film also gave Arnold Schwarzenegger, who starred as Conan, worldwide recognition as an action star. Last but not least, Dirty Harry was selected by Empire magazine as one of "The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time in 2008" [10]. All of the films listed had Milius contributing to their success. These awards show that John Milius was a professional at motion picture directing, screenwriting, and producing. Thus, his incredible work should have been noticed in the film Red Dawn and won an award for "Best Picture".

In conclusion, my choice of film should have won the award for "Best Picture" in 1984 not only because of the amazing cast but also the implausible work and dedication of the director. As we can see from my argument, the cast and director are quite capable of achieving awards and succeeding in making great films.

WOLVERINES!

Sources:
[1] http://www.imdb.com...
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.thependragon.co.uk...
[5] http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com...
[6] http://www.austinfilmfestival.com...
[7] http://www.imdb.com...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...(1982_film)
[10] http://www.empireonline.com...
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Con

Spritle, you picked a hell of an old movie, in fact its 8 years older than i am..... However i have actually seen the movie and I did enjoy it.

The Movie does have a large list of rather famous and successful actors, i will concede that, and the director has had many successful films, but there are 3 reasons why I do not think that Red Dawn, as good as it was, did not deserve Best Picture Award in 1984...

1) The biggest problem I had while watching the movie was trying to make sense out of the plot and background setting. I understand the resistance movement against foreign occupation idea. In Red Dawn though the entire movie is based on the fact that NATO had crumbled, a communist revolution occurred in Cuba, Cuban spies crippled the strategic defenses of the United States, and the fact that Cuban and Russian soldiers in disguise deployed deep into American territory via parachute.... These story lines are so absurd that even Hollywood couldn't make them seem feasible, I assume that is why the director channeled attention away from the settings to focus almost exclusively on the resistance story. The fact that Russian military intelligence believed that sending paratroopers into Calamut Colorado would provide a strategic advantage for an invasion is something that no one could believe when watching the movie...

2) All the actors in the film went on to have great careers, however their performances within the film itself didn't help any of them achieve any awards at all. Red Dawn is a fight-the-power movie where high school students take up arms to fight those occupying their country, but it doesn't take great acting to impersonate a high school student.... To claim that the actors and actresses are stellar at their job is one thing, but you have to look within the film to evaluate their performance. Looking at just the movie I wasn't impressed with their portrayals of their characters.

The Same thing goes for the director, John Milius, he was a stellar director if you only look at the movies he released in the early 1980's... Milius's only commercial success as director was Red Dawn and Conan the Barbarian. He did NOT direct Apocalypse Now and Dirty Harry, those were directed by Francis Ford Coppola and Don Siegal. Milius directed many other movies that were low budget even in the 1970's and 1980's that did not generate much revenue in the box office. His final film which was Flight of the Intruder which was his costliest movie to produce ever, it cost 35 million but it only generated 14 million in profit. That gives Milius two box office successes which i do not believe qualifies him as a very skilled director.....

3) The film came out in 1984, so that would mean that it would have won best picture when the awards were given out in 1985. However, Red Dawn received no academy awards for best director, actor, actress, screenwriting, or anything. The film in fact was not even NOMINATED for any of the categories. The award for best picture went to the film Amadues, A Movie about the life of the famous musician Mozart that ended up WINNING 8 academy awards, including best picture. Amadues was an amazing film that ended up grossing more money than Red Dawn did, and the film received 40 awards from various film critics and organizations for its plot and story, including a few for acting at the golden globes.

The movie story line itself is hard to understand and accept for a member of the audience both in the past and in the present, the director is not as skilled as you give him credit for, and the film that did win best picture that year was a far better film then Red Dawn was.
Spritle

Pro

My opponent has made an admirable argument. He has made a mistake, unfortunately, though. Throughout my opponents post he refers to his own opinion of the movie I chose. The debate is about WHY my film did not win the "Best Picture" award. Not about if the Con likes the movie or what his opinions were on it. I shall expand on this in my argument here.

In my opponents first point he contradicted himself by first saying "The biggest problem I had while watching the movie was trying to make sense out of the plot...." He then followed this up with "I understand the resistance movement against foreign occupation idea." which IS the plot. This first point is also where we first see the evidence of the Con's opinion of the movie. My opponent also states that Red Dawn is too "absurd" to even believe. I am led to believe that he is saying that non-believable movies can't win "Best Picture." In 2003, The Lord of The Rings: The Return of The King won "Best Picture." So, are you saying that Lord of the Rings is more believable than a Communist invasion of America? That it's the reason why it received the award for "Best Picture?"

The second point is not much different than the first point. My opponent expresses his opinion for the actors and director rather than the film. He states that "it doesn't take great acting to impersonate a high school student..." If you truly evaluated the movie then you'd see that those "highschool students" transform quite early on into modern day indians/warriors. We see this when 3 of our characters, Howell, Swayze, and Sheen all sit by their hunted deer and urge Howell to drink the deer blood in order to be a real hunter. (As seen in the video) Also, according to Imbd.com as well as Red Dawn: The Collector's Edition (Which I own), the cast underwent an intensive 8-week military training course before filming started. I would say that this requires a great deal of devotion and maturity to undergo. Great actors go to great lengths to fit the part.

The Con then expresses that he "...wasn't impressed with their portrayals of their characters." Yet again, this is about WHY it shouldn't have won "Best Picture," not your opinion. He then says that "Milius's only commercial success as director was Red Dawn and Conan the Barbarian." therefore proving that Red Dawn was successful. He then goes on to tell of the costs of Milius's movie Flight of the Intruder, but never really states why that pertains to winning "Best Picture." My opponent does "not believe" that it qualifies him as a skilled director! BELIEVES, ladies and gentleman! We see another use of his opinionated mindset.

Lastly, the Con states which movie won the "Best Picture" award in the year 1984. He also tells us how many awards it won and that it grossed more than Red Dawn. He did not state why that makes Amadeus a winner or what qualified it for those awards.

I researched what it took to become an award winner of a "Best Picture" award and here is what I found:

"Globe nominations have been criticized by members of the entertainment industry who question the members' qualifications as journalists and whether they give due attention to all major contenders. They have also been accused of voting on movies based on star favorites rather than overall quality of the film, which is especially crucial in the Best Motion Picture category. Some have said that understanding the reasoning behind the Golden Globes is simply incomprehensible. By looking at the winners of the Best Motion Picture over the past decade we can find out why that may be true and gain insight into what it takes to win a Golden Globe." [1]

Notice that it states nothing about gross profits.

In conclusion, I noticed that my opponent may have done his homework and researched Amadeus and criticized my film, but he did not use his work! Instead he used his own opinions to say that my film was lacking the fundamentals of winning "Best Picture." Though he never did state those fundamentals. So far I only see opinions in this debate and no actual facts or information on WHY Red Dawn shouldn't have received the award.

Sources:

[1] http://omg.yahoo.com...
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Con

The Pro states that most of my arguments are invalid because most of my argument is based on my own opinion of the movie, and I can understand why that could make my arguments invalid.

However, the difficulty with judging movies partly comes from the fact that judging their greatness partially comes from a person's individual viewpoint of the movie, so I apologize and i will try to make my argument less structured around my own opinions.....

As for my Pro's second argument I again apologize because it does appear that I have contradicted myself concerning the plot of the movie. The Pro states that the resistance movement IS the plot of the movie, which is true. In my original argument I should have clarified that it was the background of the movie/subplot of the movie that was hard to comprehend, not the main plot itself. However in the rest of the Pro's second argument he criticizes my belief of how absurd i feel the movie is by comparing it to The Lord of the Rings, a movie that did win Best Picture in 2003.... I again see what the Pro is trying to say but the Lord of the Rings is an entirely fictional fantasy movie whereas Red Dawn is based on a possible realistic communist invasion of America. What I meant to say was that the reason that Red Dawn should not have won Best Picture was that the main plot of the film is based on what could theoretically happen in a real life scenario regarding a communist invasion of America, however the background events that the movie is based on is unrealistic in many ways and that is what I was trying to state in my original argument.

To summarize I did not believe that Red Dawn didn't deserve best picture because i believed that a communist invasion of America was (back then) unrealistic. It was because the sequence of events that took place in the background of the movie were to unrealistic to be considered plausible. Such background events included a communist revolution in Mexico, the breakdown of NATO, and the use of commercial airplanes as Russian paratrooper transports....

In the Pro's third argument he debunks my opinion of how its not too hard to impersonate a high school student as an actor, and then he mentions a scene of how the characters develop through the film. I respect his view but I feel that my original opinion of how it is easy to impersonate a high school student as an actor was very biased and opinionated and I apologize for that. However If me and the Pro were to continue to try to reinforce our position on the talents of the actors, then we would both be doing so by generating our own opinions of their skills, not by using actual facts because any judgement of how well (or poor) they performed in the film would be based purely on opinion.

In the third argument though the Pro does mention about how in the collection edition it shows how actors trained for 8 weeks to prepare for filming the movie. Now I find that admirable but does devotion always translate into quality performance? If for example someone trains for a basketball season by doing drills for three hours every day all summer that does not necessarily mean that they would have a good season if they stink at basketball...... I want to clarify that i do not believe that the actors are so bad that 8 weeks of training were futile, what i am trying to say is that devotion does not always directly translate into quality performance....

In the next argument the Pro again attacks my use of my opinions of the director. I again apologize because he is correct, this argument is about why I believe this movie should not have won Best Picture. In my original argument I was simply trying to attack the Pro's belief of why the director is not as skilled as he originally claimed. I see now that the argument over the skill of the director does NOT relate to why the movie shouldn't have won best picture. However, in his opening argument the Pro listed the directors successes as a reason for why Red Dawn should have won best picture. I am indeed guilty of trying to use my own opinions of why the movie should not have won Best Picture, however the Pro has also used his favorable opinion of the director to reinforce his argument as well.... So we are both guilty of trying to reinforce our arguments with our own opinions.

The Pro's next argument analyzes how the process of nominating films for awards itself may be flawed, and I do agree with him, I believe that the process of receiving nominations may be flawed. One of the reasons he stated why it may be flawed is because those who are nominating the movies may chose movies because of the stars in the cast. I think though that could be a reason why the Pro has a favorable view of the movie. In his original argument though the Pro listed the cast of actors in the film and their later fame as one of the reasons he favored the film, and I believe that as the Pro stated, films should be judged on their quality of acting NOT the stars in the film........

The Con also mentions how gross profits do not determine if a film is nominated, and that certainly makes sense. I certainly am not trying to say that Red Dawn should have lost because it did not make enough money, I am merely stating that, using gross profits as a tool of measuring the popularity of movies, Red Dawn was not as popular or as successful as other movies of its time. One of the reasons a film may not have been as popular or successful as other movies may be that a majority of people believed that one movie, such as Red Dawn, may not have had such a good performance compared to a more popular movie of that year, such as Amadeus, based on the amount of profit each movie generated in the same year.....

I admit that my previous argument in round 2 was very opinionated. So was my opponents but to be fair mine was far more opinionated, again I apologize. So if we remove opinions from this argument and stick purely to facts then lets go back to round one and re-analyze why my opponent feels Red Dawn should have won.....

In his first argument he states how the success of the actors and their stardom were one reason why the film should have won. But we both agreed that films should not be nominated or win awards based on how famous their casts were, so the Pro's first argument is invalid. He then mentions how those actors performed very well in other films based on actual reviews by well respected journalists, newspapers, critics, etc. But again we are trying to focus on their performances only in the film Re Dawn, so that argument is invalid as well....

In his second opening argument he lists the many successes of the film's director as another reason why the film should have won. However that argument too uses the director's successes in other films and his popularity to justify why Red Dawn should have won best picture, but we both agreed that the film that won best picture should not be based on popularity of those who are in the film It should be based on the quality of the film, so his second original argument is invalid as well....

The Pro used his entire second argument to attack why my analysis of the movie was opinionated, however his original argument itself was also very opinionated.

"They have also been accused of voting on movies based on star favorites rather than overall quality of the film..."

That was, word for word, what the Pro said when criticizing the nomination process for academy awards, and it is very true. But the Pro's entire opening argument goes completely against this statement because the reason he believes the film should have won has been based on the stardom and success for the actors in the film and the director who directed it, not on their performance within the film itself.....

Sorry that this argument was so long :P
Spritle

Pro

To start off let me just say that my opponent, in his last response, showed his flaws. In about 75% of his response he was apologizing for his errors and basically showing that I had indeed won the previous engagement. Also, no where in my opponents argument did he talk about why Amadeus had won "Best Picture." My opponent still has not stated why Amadeus won and what makes it better than Red Dawn.

Also, he breifly discusses how unrealistic Red Dawn is. He states that "i believed that a communist invasion of America was (back then) unrealistic." Back in 1984 the U.S was engaged in the Cold War. Communism was a HUGE threat! So back then an invasion or bombing of America was not only completely realistic, it was feared. Secondly, he states that " the use of commercial airplanes as Russian paratrooper transports...." is unrealistic as well. If you can remember, the hijackers on 9/11 used commercial airplanes to devestate our country. If it was done in 2001 it most certainly can be reasonable 17 years prior in 1984.

Lastly, my opponent accuses me of opinionating my arguments as well. Of course there is going to be some opinionated views peppered throughout the debate, but the Con has not only peppered, but added some salt to it as well. If you look at my opinions vs. the Con's, you can see that I used more facts and less opinions than he has done.
In round one we see the example of myself using facts, and movies as evidence to show success of the actors and the director. There is little to no opinions expressed in my argument throughout Round 1. The Con also states:

"'They have also been accused of voting on movies based on star favorites rather than overall quality of the film...' That was, word for word, what the Pro said when criticizing the nomination process for academy awards...'"

This statement is false. I personally did not say that about the voting process. I had received that quote from a source directly. Therefore, my opponent can't directly link that to my personal views. I was merely showing what qualities the voters look for when voting on "Best Picture" movies.

In conclusion, I can safely say that I believe my opponent has dug himself into a hole. Round 3 was nothing but apologies and stating that I was correct. Hopefully, you, as the voters, see this and vote accordingly when the time comes.
Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Con

Ok first of all I was apologizing for basing my argument on my opinions, not because i think you are right because your certainly are not. The Pro then takes one of my quotes completely out of context, I never believed that a communist invasion of america was impossible, I was stating that the events based off of such an invasion that took place in the movie were impossible. Those events include the breakdown of NATO, the communist revolution of Mexico, and no extensive use of nuclear weapons between the two nations.

Stop taking words out of their context, it is very immature...

The Pro then tries to justify using commercial airliners as bases for launching paratroopers by saying that the hijackers of airplanes on 9/11 did the same thing. First of all that is not what happened, 19 people on four different flights bypassed security, hijacked the airplanes, and then turned them into missiles. In the movie the Russians would have had to slip hundreds of Russian troops onto dozens of civilian airliners, armed with automatic weapons not box cutters like the 9/11 terrorists were, and then deploy from these commercial airliners all over America at the same time..... THAT is completely unrealistic.

The Pro then moans about how I pointed out that he used opinions in his arguments like I did, he then says i rubbed salt in his wounds because he claims that I exposed some of his opinions in his original arguments. The Pro feels that I shouldn't be allowed to expose his arguments as opinionated because my arguments were also opinionated, yet the Pro states that all arguments rely on some opinion. The Pro is trying to use opinions to reinforce his arguments but he whines about how I shouldn't be able to use opinions for mine...

The Pro then states that he personally did not say how he thought voting films for awards should not be based on the stardom of the cast. The Pro did not say it but he used that very quote in his argument to state how gross profits do not determine which movies are nominated for awards. I then used the same quote to debunk his original argument in the first round, which is perfectly legal because I am also showing what qualities people look for when nominating movies for best picture. People should not nominate movies based on the stardom of the cast, yet that is exactly what the Pro did when he tried to defend why Red Dawn should have won Best Picture.

Round 3 was not me apologizing and saying the Pro was right. I was stating how i should have not based my original argument solely on my own opinions of the movie. I conceded nothing to the Pro because in the last argument I used the Pro's own evidence against him and he went off on a tantrum because of it. I was trying to act as a gentleman by admitting that my style of argument may have been informal. But instead of respecting my apologies and reinforcing his own argument he childishly attacks me for showing weakness and claiming that he has always been right when he has been wrong.

Let me now take this time to state why Amadeus was better than Red Dawn so that the Pro can stop whining about it. First of all Amadeus was a very well structured movie that is based on actual events of an actual historical person and the story line of the film follows the life of that character (Mozart) through his entire life. Red Dawn on the other hand was an under-budgeted movie filmed in the backwoods of Colorado in a town that a majority of Americans never even heard of that is based off of multiple unfeasible events where high school students and Russian soldiers shoot at each other for the whole damn movie. Amadeus was a movie where the character of Mozart gives many life lessons that people in the audience can interpret and learn valuable life experiences from. Red Dawn is a movie based purely on action and violence where when nobody is shooting at each other there is still someone doing something barbaric, violent, and stupid (like drinking deer blood). Amadeus was also a movie that was critically acclaimed for the portrayals of characters in the film whereas Red Dawn did not receive a single nomination for acting skills from ANY academy, organization, etc. which I think reinforces the fact about how a great majority of people in 1984 - 1985 felt that Amadeus was a far better film than Red Dawn.

There is my argument. Red Dawn should not have won Best Picture because Amadeus was a far more believable and relatable film that followed the progression and life lessons of a famous musician whereas Red Dawn is a movie that is just violence and gory acts of shooting that is based on a very unrealistic series of events that occurred during a communist invasion of America.

Hopefully voters can now see that the Pro no longer has a standing argument for why the film should have won Best Picture. His original argument was based completely on the fact that the film had a cast of actors who were very famous and and that the director had a history of commercially successful films. That does not justify why a poorly designed and executed movie like Red Dawn should have won best picture over a more well designed film such as Amadeus....
Spritle

Pro

It seems my opponent is getting quite hostile towards me. Calling me such names as "childish" and "immature." Let me just note that I am not the one calling names here.

My opponent states in his first paragraph that he was just apologizing and not saying that I was right. I am going to list several examples that prove that what he said is a false statement.

1.) Early in Round 2 I said: "In my opponent's first point he contradicted himself..." My opponent then, in Round 3, goes on to say: "...it does appear that I have contradicted myself..." therefore making my statement correct and agreeing that I am RIGHT.

2.) In Round 3, 7th paragraph, my opponent says flat out: "...the Pro again attacks my use of my opinions of the director. I again apologize because he is correct." He blatantly states that I am RIGHT, once again.

3.) Also in Round 3, 8th paragraph, my opponent yet again says: "...I do agree with him..." claiming that I was RIGHT.

4.) Finally, 9th paragaph Round 3, my opponent states: "The Con also mentions how gross profits do not determine if a film is nominated, and that certainly makes sense." He is agreeing with me which makes what I said, CORRECT.

FOUR times, ladies and gentlemen, my opponent proved that I was right. He then goes on to say that I am not right? It seems that he is aware that he has dug himself a hole. He frantically tries to get out but he just keeps going deeper.

I am only going to argue my opponents last two paragraphs. I feel as though his other paragraphs do not even relate to the topic at hand. All he does is bash me.

My opponent gives a poor summary of why Amadeus should have won. Although, he bases most of his summary off of the fact that Amadeus was a true story, with true facts, and actual events. If that is why it won "Best Picture" than it wouldn't make sense that The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King won "Best Picture" in 2003. I don't know about you guys, but I sure haven't heard of Mordor. I also believe that Return of the King is rife with violence. My opponent has yet to make a reasonable argument on why Amadeus won "Best Picture." All we know now is that Amadeus is about Mozart, follows a realistic plot, and teaches life lessons.

I, on the other hand, made the argument that both actors and directors did their part extremely well in order to make a great film. Red Dawn had action, suspense, emotion, and it gave a great deal of people patriotism in America.

If going by my opponents standards of why somthing should win, then I could say that Red Dawn was completely realistic back in the days of the Cold War. It is also about highschool students turned guerilla fighters who fought to secure freedom for their country. We see this all the time in our lives today. (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.) Therefore, that makes Red Dawn realistic. My opponent also says that my film didn't receive an award or even get nominated. If I remember correctly, the topic of this debate "Think of your favorite movie right now...... Now try to remember if you thought it should have won best picture the year it came out. Did it? Maybe it did but it probably didn't, but you think it should have won right?" He clearly stays that "Maybe it did but it probably didn't..." Just because Amadeus was nominated for multiple awards and actually won doesn't mean that's WHY it won "Best Picture." So, my opponent can't possibly argue that just because my film wasn't nominated and didn't win awards means that it shouldn't have won "Best Picture."

In conclusion, all I can really see in this round is that my opponent is furious at me, and he briefly and poorly represents his film. His arguments for his movie winning is that it was realistic, and base upon true events. As we can see, those do not even matter considering Lord of the Rings won in 2003.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
imabench

Con

I find the Pro's use of logic kind of funny. He offers four instances of me apologizing for using opinions in this argument when i could have used facts, and he tries to use twist those statements into implying that he was right when that isnt true at all. The first point is so vague in what he is referring to it doesnt make sense. In his second point he again takes my words out of context to try to prove a point. Again i apologized because I had used opinion to make a point when i could have used facts to prove a point. The Pro saying that such a move makes him automatically correct is hilarious.

In his third point the Pro once again takes words out of context to try to say he was right. I was agreeing with him on the grounds that the nomination process for academy awards could be flawed... In Point four he points out that gross profits do not play a factor in nominations for academy awards...

I find it almost sad that the Pro has grown so desperate that he is trying to take advantage of voters by trying to trick them into thinking I am conceding every argument to him.....

I am not furious at my opponent, I am just growing tired of having to explain every little thing to him because if i dont he will take my words out of context and try to reinforce why he is right. He even attacks how i worded the opening of the debate to imply that he is right before the debate even started....

Let me take this last argument to summarize the Pro's catastrophic argument and my responses to each one

First argument - He feels that Red Dawn should have won because the actors in the cast are very famous and successful and the director of the film has released many successful movies
My argument - I felt the cast did not perform well in the movie, the plot of the movie was too unrealistic, and the director only had 2 commercially successful films even though the Pro claimed he had 4 (2 of which he named he didnt actually direct)

His second argument - The fact that the movie was a very unrealistic representation of how a communist invasion of America doesnt matter because Lord of the Rings is unrealistic and that won best picture. He also states how I shouldnt use opinions to reinforce my arguments. Stating how the nomination process may be flawed and that gross profits do not impact which film is better.
My argument - I apologize for using opinions and so offer facts to reinforce every point that i made in my original argument. I then use the Pro's own evidence and use it to suggest why it may nullify his own arguments.

His third argument - He attacks my apologies for using opinions and says how its a sign of weakness and implies that the events in Red Dawn were very likely by comparing it to 9/11. He also argues why the fact that his own arguments were opinionated does not matter because I did the same thing originally but does not offer facts to reinforce his previous arguments like I did.
My argument - I clarify my points to help the Pro avoid confusion and proceed on attacking his tactics of taking my words out of context to imply that he is 100% right in every way. I then elaborately explain why i think Amadeus deserved to win Best Picture and not Red Dawn.

His fourth argument - He attacks my use of adjectives by saying that i am growing hostile, lists four points of how I allegedly agree with him and his entire argument, and convinces himself that I am furious with him. He then concludes by stating I have not given sufficient evidence of why I think Red Dawn did not win best picture with yet another reference to the Lord of the Rings.
My argument - I further clarify my points to help the Pro avoid even more confusion and give a final summary of why Amadeus won Best Picture and not Red Dawn

The reason why both Amadeus and Lord of the Rings Return of the King won Best picture is because, both films have very well organized plots, both films have very detailed character development over the course of the movie, both movies have a cast who portray their characters very well in the film, it evokes deep emotions from those watching the film, an amazing script, and perhaps most importantly because both movies had endings that draw a deep level of satisfaction from the audience

The reason I put that in bold is because that is ultimately how a movie wins Best Picture. Both Amadeus and L.O.T.R. won best picture because they all succeed very well in all of these categories. Red Dawn on the other hand has a poorly organized plot, there is no character development, and the movie has an ending that draws no satisfaction from an audience.

That is why Red Dawn should not have won Best Picture in 1985.




Spritle

Pro

My opponent only really focues on clarifying himself in this last round. He briefly explains why Amadeus and LOTR won their awards at the end. His explanation of why they won is in bold. Although he doesn't even go into detail on the plot, character development, cast, etc.

For this last round I will once again post why Red Dawn should have won "Best Picture" award.

Red Dawn has a cast full of diversity and different acting abilities. The cast trained for 8 weeks in an intense military program in order to fill the role of guerilla fighters. They learned how to shoot multiple weapons as well as act the part of warriors. The devotion to the movie and the training program really showed its colors in the filming. The acting was very believable. The cast drastically changes from civilized, normal teenagers to barbaric, naturistic warriors! The development of these changes is greatly detailed throughout the movie. The plot of Red Dawn is easily obtained throughout the first 30 mins. of the video. Following the plot is quite simple. There is a clear point to the movie and a steady plot line. As you watch this movie your patriotism and pride swell. You begin to feel the pain of losing family members and being alone in the wilderness fending for yourself. Later on in the film you begin to feel the anger and hate showed toward the Communist invaders. (Movies show the acting, hate, and emotional sides of the movie.) (The third video has terrible quality but it shows the emotional ending.)

In the end I showed way more evidence of my film being a better candidate for "Best Picture" than my opponent ever did. Hopefully, you, as the voters, can see that and vote for Pro! My opponent is aggressive and seems to concentrate on making me look like the enemy rather than sticking to why his film was better. Therefore, he ultimately loses this debate. But I shall let the judges make the decision!

Plus, I'm sure we'd all much rather watch an action movie than a movie about Mozart...

WOLVERINES!

Thanks for the debate.

PRO
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by imabench 6 years ago
imabench
This year i believe it went to "The Kings speech" but this argument isnt limited to movies released last year or this year the movie you could be arguing for could be from any year.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 6 years ago
PeacefulChaos
No problem :)

BTW, which movie actually won the best picture?
Posted by imabench 6 years ago
imabench
thanks for spotting that :)
Posted by PeacefulChaos 6 years ago
PeacefulChaos
I thought the maximum amount of rounds was 5.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
imabenchSpritleTied
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 argues about their favorite movie, when the debate says he should not.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
imabenchSpritleTied
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 concedes too much points
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
imabenchSpritleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded what pro said. Also, a lower case i gives spelling to pro, sources are obvious.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
imabenchSpritleTied
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 waits till late in the debate to give his opinion on which movie should have won. Conduct: both debaters were very hostile and took quite a few swings at each other. Overall Con concedes too many points from Pro's case and Pro had the better arguments on balance.
Vote Placed by PartamRuhem 6 years ago
PartamRuhem
imabenchSpritleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 really wasn't that convincing that Amadeus should have won. His points were that it was realistic, and had moral lessons it taught people and what not. The second part is all subject to perspective, which Pro kinda stated, but ultimately Pro get's this debate because he showed how a movie doesn't have to be realistic in order to win, which Con concedes in his last round. Conduct stays tied, for Pro misquoted Con, but Con retorted Pro with incivility.