Instigator / Con
0
1475
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

Are reality TV shows a good source of entertainment?

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
6
Sources points
0
4
Spelling and grammar points
0
2
Conduct points
0
2

With 2 votes and 14 points ahead, the winner is ...

User_2006
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
TV
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
14
1415
rating
47
debates
36.17%
won
Description
~ 211 / 5,000

Debate whether reality TV shows such as Keeping Up With The Kardashians, The Bachelor, Love Island etc are bad entertainment/rots our minds. I believe they do rot our minds and are a bad source of entertainment.

Round 1
Con
Forfeited
Pro
Define "reality shows" first consider someone will eventually be confused. 

Say, giving a child definition for "Successful entrepreneurs", while giving them examples like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Mr.Beast, he will think that "successful entrepreneurs" means adult men and only adult men can be successful entrepreneurs. In reality, Kylie Jenner can also be a successful entrepreneur, despite being a female. 

So to me, your 3 examples given are synonymous to "crappy shows that are slightly outdated". 

Now, now, what is a reality show? 

Mentioning Kylie Jenner, we can examine one of your examples: Keeping up with Kardashians.
Is Keeping up with Kardashians even reality show?
The show, titled Keeping Up with the Kardashians, premiered on October 14, 2007.[20] The reality series centers around the members of the Kardashian-Jenner blended family, focusing on the sisters Kourtney, Kim and Khloé. Most episodes have very similar structure: the family "show[s] off their privileged lifestyle and maybe get into one or two minor family squabbles before ultimately wrapping things up with a monologue that reinforces the importance of family," as noted by Caroline Siede of Quartz.[21]
This quote shows that this is not that real as many episodes they are either drafted from scripts or just boring materialism. A better example would be Top Gear.

Top Gear is a British motoring magazine, factual television series.
Factual means reality, yes. So Top gear is a TV show where they show off their cars(not wealth, Kardashians are just a wastage of wealth while Top gear is pushing the limits for land vehicle engineering) and tune them to will. Now, which one is better? Keeping Top gear in the description would prevent misunderstandings such as that Kylie Jenner cannot be successful. 


Finally, let me define "Reality show" because my opponent somehow misses this huge of a part of an advantage. 

"Reality television is a genre of television programming that documents purportedly unscripted real-life situations, often starring unknown individuals rather than professional actors."

This would mean that all the news is reality shows, as well as all adventure series. Now, THESE are better reality shows than what You listed. 

Don't forfeit next time!
Round 2
Con
Forfeited
Pro
Since my opponent had failed to respond to the 2 rounds, she had lost a lot of opportunities to make new points and/or refute my arguments. For this, it thus became rational to vote for PRO. However, the reason there is some text under it is that I was not quite satisfied with just my last argument.

Conclusion 1: CON has forfeited both rounds, leaving herself no defense for my points whatsoever.
Conclusion 2: CON has failed to prove why reality shows are a bad method of entertainment.

Define "Good". Since my opponent had failed to define the term "good" in the description, I will do it for her, turning the tables. 

Good:
#. Definition(Example)
1. Having the expected values(This man is good because he is nice to girls and he is strong.)
2. To be desired or approve of(I want this console for Christmas, it is good!)
3. Giving pleasure(Last night's party is so good!)

I can just avoid the definitions that favor CON since CON did not specify the definition for the term itself whatsoever.

Definition #1: Having expected values
(As long as I can prove ONE reality show that is good, all the world can watch this and only this, meaning this reality show is good and it will make watching reality show a good form of entertainment).
Let me use the Kardashians as an example.

The definition of a reality show is shown within the previous argument. Any person who can scroll can scroll above to see.

Now, Is the Kardashians series happening in reality? Yes. Is it always scripted? No. These qualities would make Kardashians a satisfactory, or good, reality show. 

Definition 2: To be desired or approved of
The fact the show is running for 18 seasons means that there are people that still watch and approve of the show. It at least didn't go down into ruins.

Definition 3: Giving pleasure
Hedonistically, Sex, Weed, alcohol, etc. are all "good" forms of pleasure in a short period of time. Maybe not objectively, but hedonistically, even Kardashians or similar shows can be good. It satisfies some people's eyes to seeing riches and spoiled people, and that is "good" at some point.

Conclusion 3: I have proven why Reality shows can be good, and watching only the good ones will make reality shows good.

Vote PRO!