T-Series is the first creator to reach 100M
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
Spelling and grammar points
With 7 votes and 34 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
~ 19 / 5,000
I thank TheAtheist for accepting the debate.
I am going to simply copy from Wikipedia (sourcing them as well) with things that are simply explanations of what things are not explaining my argument.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, doing business as T-Series,[note 1] is a music record label and film production company in India founded by Gulshan Kumar in 1983. It is primarily known for Bollywood music soundtracks and Indi-pop music. As of 2014, T-Series is India's largest music record label, with up to a 35% share of the Indian music market, followed by Sony Music India and Zee Music. T-Series also owns and operates the most-viewed and most-subscribed channel on YouTube, with over 109 million subscribers and 80 billion views as of August 2019. While best known as a music label, T-Series has also had some moderate success as a film production company.
100 million = 100,000,000
X should be followed because it is generally agreed upon and not harmful.
My position is so.
X should be followed because I am not purity testing a very general term.
My position is so.
X should be followed because there is no meaningful distinction making an exception.
My position is so,
T-Series should be called the first creator to reach 100 million because the definition of creator fits under what they are. Here says so. Here says so. Here says so. A creator is someone who creates something. Simple. Since T-Series is made up of a bunch of creators either they can share the hypothetical trophy or the person who did the most to reach the goal of 100 million would deserve the hypothetical trophy.
T-Series should be called the first creator to reach 100 million because not including kind of states biases you have towards corporations. I personally don't like corporations that I do not benefit from. I also don't like people who I do not benefit. Both of them if did wrong to me would mean I would despise them. I don't think my opponent thinks this way because I think he has a bias against corporations or like PewDiePie too much. I did watch his content at some point and have no real fond of T-Series but even I can acknowledge that they are the first creator to reach T-Series. I think there are some biases at play to make a general term less general given whatever a person feels like. This s not a pivotal point of my argument but still something I would like my opponent to comment on.
T-Series should be called the first creator to reach 100 million because under what is a creator they fit that definition. When I ask what is a creator. I get T-Series not the first but since we are arguing about them they came to mind. The reason is that they are creating content. They have their own YouTube link and people watch it. People watching does give credence to them being a creator since without a person viewing a creation how would we know something is created. It really only takes one person willing to watch their content and state it to others for this to occur. Given I have just watched their content and relaying to people on here that they have created something it would fit under the what is a creator umbrella. Kind of same to my first argument but I want to be more philosophical without the complicated words that semperfortis but be nice to the majority of the population who don't study philosophy.
I think that is it.
Over to you TheAtheist
Thank you to TheRealNihilist for this debate and let's begin.
My opponent has defined creator as someone who creates something. I agree with that definition. However, I do not agree that T-Series fits the definition of creator, for the following reasons:
I. T-Series does not create YouTube content.
II. T-Series does not fit the YouTube definition of a creator.
I. "Does not create content":
Unlike the YouTuber PewDiePie, T-Series does not create any actual content. T-Series, like my opponent said, is a music record label company, meaning that it is associated with the marketing of music videso and music recordings. T-Series simply published the music videos of Indian musical performers, it does not create anything on its own. The performers make the videos and then T-Series publishes and markets them. PewDiePie's channel, on the other hand, consists of video game commentary, social commentary, and original shows such as Meme Review, LWIAY, and PewNews (1).
II. "Does not fit definition":
A YouTube creator, or a YouTuber, is a person who creates original content on YouTube (2). T-Series is not a person, and it does not create original content. Just like a company cannot be the author of a book, a company also cannot be the author of YouTube content. Both of those things are created by individuals, not organizations. T-Series is a company, not a person, and so it does not fit the definition of creator.
Now I would like to comment on my opinion about T-Series, like my opponent has requested.
I am indeed a fan of PewDiePie, but that doesn't affect my decisions on this topic. I am not arguing about this topic because I don't like T-Series. I am arguing about this topic because I don't believe T-Series is a YouTube creator. If a YouTuber I do not like, Jake Paul for example, managed to best PewDiePie and reached 100mil before him, I would agree that Jake Paul reached 100mil before Pewds did. However, Jake Paul is a YouTube creator, while T-Series is not.
In my opinion, all corporations should not be considered YouTube creators, regardless of their relationships with PewDiePie.
Thank you and over to PRO.
Unlike the YouTuber PewDiePie, T-Series does not create any actual content. T-Series, like my opponent said, is a music record label company, meaning that it is associated with the marketing of music videso and music recordings.
This goes into a much greater question of what is actual content? You didn't answer instead set an arbitrary position that T-Series isn't. Lets take for instance PewDiePie. He plays videogames like Minecraft. He doesn't own the rights to the game but you would consider that to be actual content whereas when T-Series sharing Bollywood stuff on their platform is not content? T-Series does have some rights to the content like PewDiePie which is why they are allowed to show content of a movie that is not even out at the time when the video was released.
T-Series simply published the music videos of Indian musical performers, it does not create anything on its own.
T-Series created a bigger platform for the bollywood stuff. PewDiePie created a bigger platform for his brand. They are the same. The only things that are different is the context around it and how many people are involved. If you haven't heard PewDiePie isn't the sole creator of his YouTube. He has editors etc. You creating a arbitrary restriction because I don't know PewDiePie fits the norm of YouTube creators which clouds your judgment when someone who doesn't fit the norm creates content on YouTube but you don't see it that way.
The performers make the videos and then T-Series publishes and markets them. PewDiePie's channel, on the other hand, consists of video game commentary, social commentary, and original shows such as Meme Review, LWIAY, and PewNews (1).
Let me just quote something from the about page of T-Series "T-Series is associated with music industry from past three decades, having ample catalogue of music comprising plenty of languages that covers the length & breadth of India.". If it wasn't clear T-Series were the ones that were part of Bollywood before it was as popular as it is today. This clearly shows that T-Series has helped established more content than PewDiePie yet you don't consider them creating anything. How about them creating several amount of jobs and wouldn't you look at that. Looking at the production page of the T-Series wiki they created 67 movies which would mean what is being realeased on their channel is content they have created.
Here is one example "Batla House" one production they are involved in and here they are producing original content. So your argument is null. If you want please ask me in the next Round for more examples if you really think I am exaggerating about the 67 movies. Bearing in mind they still have movies coming up.
A YouTube creator, or a YouTuber, is a person who creates original content on YouTube (2).
A lie. Please bear this in mind when giving conduct points. Here is what the definition actually says "A YouTuber, also known as a YouTube personality, YouTube bot, or YouTube content creator, is a type of internet celebrity and videographer who has gained popularity from their videos on the video-sharing website YouTube." Your own definition doesn't even apply to PewDiePie given he doesn't make the video by himself. If that wasn't clear here. Sure they have recently split apart but for PewDiePie to upload so much he would require an editor given the amount is put in the videos. So just to make sure people are following. TheAtheist didn't know T-Series does create original content and under the definition he gave which he lied about above (original content part) wouldn't even apply to PewDiePie because what he does is more than a 1 man job.
T-Series is a company, not a person, and so it does not fit the definition of creator.
Thank you for making an argument against PewDiePie as well. Since PewDiePie is run by more than 1 person it doesn't fit under the definition of a YouTube creator. The more important question would be who would even be classed as a YouTube creator? No-one apart from people who are really bad at being effective with their time and money.
I think I have shown how the position of my opponent is false. T-Series does create original content. PewDiePie wouldn't even fit the YouTube creator definition you made up which limits the person doing things with the account to only being one. With this in mind for TheAtheist to have a chance is to sufficiently rebut my claims in Round 1 or pivot away from what he said here and make it philosophical. What does it mean to be a creator? What ought we value? Doubtful but a guy can dream.
Over to you TheAtheist
I think I made a good enough case and I will waive a round because I have nothing more to add.
My opponent convinced me, I'm going to concede this win. Vote Pro, thank you for the debate.