EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That popular entertainers should not engage in political campaigns

10 points
0 points
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard (PRO)
In this debate, i will offer a couple arguments on why popular entertainers should not be involved in political campaigns.

Argument #1: Entertainers are too influential in this world and politics is based on opinion. Politics is a very important area in our lives and entertainers would attract too many fans to their side even if they don't think the candidate their supporting is who we need. So many people love entertainers and would choose to vote for a candidate they even wouldn't normally want just because their favorite entertainer is involved in a political campaign.

Argument #2: Politics would be taken less seriously if more popular entertainers got involved because entertainers are loved for their entertainment, not their views. Politics is very serious and it would not be good to mix it with entertainment.

I am not arguing that entertainers should be banned from political campaigns, i am simply saying they should not get involved in our elections.

Thank you for reading.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-05-12 21:11:31
| Speak Round
DebatingAngelDebatingAngel (CON)
I think they should be part of political things. Popular entertainers are the same as us it's just they are more well known. Some people,like Donald Trump, want to be known more than others but some people, like Prince Harry, think of themselves as just a person and not a prince. DHS15608, entertainers aren't too influential in this world only because all they do is entertain people. Yes they may be cool, yes they may be pretty or handsome but that doesn't mean they can't engage in political campaigns. 

Thank you. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-05-16 07:31:26
| Speak Round
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard (PRO)
PRO is arguing that entertainers are no different, that they are just like us but are more well known and are not too influential in this world. 
I am arguing that popular entertainers are too influential to be involved in politics. Entertainment is what makes entertainers very influential. Ask people about their favorite scientist and politician, then ask someone about their favorite entertainer. Entertainers are a lot more influential than politicians, so imagine them getting involved in politics. People mostly value entertainment over academics, which is why entertainers would influence politics too much. Entertainers should be separate from politicians, you don't see Barack Obama starring in movies, so why should entertainers be in our elections? Mixing politics and entertainment is not a good thing since politics is important. Entertainment and politics would be better separated.

Thanks, and even though most disagree, don't be too closed-minded to my case.

I hope you vote PRO.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-05-16 22:28:01
| Speak Round
DebatingAngelDebatingAngel (CON)
I am saying that it doesn't matter if you are famous or not-you are still part of the 7 billion+ people of the world. Yes, some entertainers might be influential but some are just doing for the money. 

PRO is saying that entertainers are too influential for us. I thoroughly disagree with this person's thought.  Entertainers are the same as non-entertainers. The only thing that is different is that they come on our screen every Saturday or Sunday night. The non-entertainers,however, sit home on that Saturday or Sunday. The next Monday they talk about what they liked the most on that particular famous show and everything like that. That is what entertainers do. Yeah, it must be a great job, but really DHS15608, how on earth are entertainers influential in this world? 

Thank you for reading. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-05-17 19:34:22
| Speak Round
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard (PRO)
I see CON disagrees with me on the point that entertainers are influential in this world. CON doesn't think entertainers are too influential to be involved in politics. However, she is wrong.
"According to a study conducted by Huston and Wright at the University of Kansas, the only thing that kids spend more time doing than watching TV shows is sleeping. Every time you turn on the TV, go to the movies or read a magazine, you see TV and movie stars, but you may not always be thinking about the effects that celebrities have on you."*1
Entertainers star on TV shows and movies which are around us everywhere, that's what makes entertainers more influential than others.
Entertainers would influence our elections and especially young voters too much. Just as many don't want religion to influence our government, entertainment shouldn't influence our elections.

Thanks.       Vote Pro!

*1-More here: http://www.teenzeen.org/teens-and-celebrities.html

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-05-17 22:16:40
| Speak Round
DebatingAngelDebatingAngel (CON)
Well, maybe PRO is wrong. He is saying that children watch television a miniature bit less than sleeping. I don't. I am a certain young age. I like tests, reading and writing descriptively. My house is a family of education. Not a family of people who look forward to Saturdays or Sundays. Yes, I like TV a lot. But that doesn't mean I am crazy about it and I watch 24/7. Entertainers are not more influential than non-entertainers. They are just known more, like 'Ant&Dec!' 

For example, why should a person who is just kicking a ball around make him or her more influential? It doesn't! All these people are doing is playing football which is practically just kicking a ball around everywhere frantically. The next week, they get paid £300,000! This is all because they are kicking a ball.

A bit weird isn't it? 
Thank you for reading.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-05-18 16:42:33
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Hello, please my you put why you voted for DHS15608 as it would be most appreciated.
Posted 2016-05-28 11:17:35
Since this was a secret topic, I was hoping it would be something I would agree with or at least make sense to argue for. I was hoping I wouldn't get, "That only woman should be allowed to vote" or "That banning books is justified" since those are some on the issues that I see as too radical. I don't agree with this statement, but its not too hard to argue for.
Posted 2016-05-17 21:34:22
DHS15608, I really do agree with you! I like to do short debates as well.
Posted 2016-05-16 18:29:25
The time to post was more than enough, it took me less than an hour. I kinda like short debates since you don't have to spend much time on it.
Posted 2016-05-12 21:18:07
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-05-22 11:21:48
Aes SedaiJudge: Aes Sedai
Win awarded to: Bi0Hazard
I agree, to many people will vote based on the entertainers opinion.
2 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
0 comments on this judgement
2016-05-28 11:15:01
Nynaeve SedaiJudge: Nynaeve Sedai
Win awarded to: Bi0Hazard
2016-05-30 07:34:26
gavstone21Judge: gavstone21
Win awarded to: Bi0Hazard
DHS made a good point in saying how entertainers should not be be banned from getting involved in politics, but should not because of their influence with a lot of the population. I say this because the debate focuses on whether entertainers should engage in politics, not whether they are allowed to. Debating Angel came back with entertainers are like everyone else and they don't have as much influenced as DHS said they did. DHS came back with some facts to back up his statement. Angel tried to argue since she was a certain age and she did not LOVE tv DHS's facts were wrong. She is wrong by saying she represents the general population.
2 users rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
2016-05-31 06:58:59
Priest of SwagJudge: Priest of Swag
Win awarded to: Bi0Hazard
Persuasion skills were lacking on both sides. The opposition could not formulate a clear and coherent argument, which is why I was more persuaded by the affirmative.
0 comments on this judgement
2016-06-01 02:28:27
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Bi0Hazard
OK effort by both sides.

Pro opened with two substantive contentions. First he claimed entertainers have an undue influence, which is bad because they might not themselves really believe in the candidate (from which I gather the entertainers would be just trolling us or something). The second was that politics in general would be taken less seriously. I didn't really understand why it would not be good to mix politics with entertainment, but the claim was made.

Con claimed that entertainers are just ordinary people who happened to be famous. She argued that the influence is limited because people know they are entertainers first and foremost. I didn't feel she engaged much with pro's second contention, and then pro seemed to forget about it for the rest of the debate, so it fell out.

Pro's argument continued that entertainers have a greater influence than politicians themselves, and continued to drive home this narrative that entertainers are not important, while politicians are. Con continued with her narrative, the TV analogy being very memorable.

Finally pro produced his trump card (pun intended) and showed a report where entertainers have almost as much influence as vivid dreams. Therefore pro reaffirmed that entertainers should be classed along with other non-serious people like the clergy. To which con replied that yeah, they are on TV, they do get paid heaps, but not everyone is crazy about them and it's all a bit weird anyway.

I think pro wins this debate and here's why: there was only one compelling issue. That's whether celebrities have an undue amount of influence. Pro demonstrated substantive differences between celebrities and ordinary people. While con attempted to show this does not translate into real influence, I felt like she never really specifically answered the contention that politicians are less influential than entertainers. Therefore pro wins the debate.

Both sides need to learn to talk about IMPACTS!

An impact is what some argument means for people. So for example, an impact in this debate might have been that without entertainers being allowed to support candidates, political rallies would be boring and nobody would attend. Therefore politics would become less popular and people would be more apathetic to political issues being raised. This could mean that votes are less representative, undermining democracy.

The only impact in this debate was that celebrities might endorse a candidate they do not really believe in, but even there I wasn't exactly sure why that was bad. You see how my example impact there takes you through several steps, "therefore", "that's bad because". Making an argument alone isn't really enough.

Especially in rebuttal, you're ok to just attack impacts. You can say "yeah your argument is true, but why is that bad? In fact it might be a good thing!" If they don't justify an impact you should always attack them on it if you can.

Well done and best of luck to both sides going forward. :)
1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as good
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 1000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None
No swearing!!!!