Actors can be great leaders
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
While it is true that actors often have charisma and public speaking skills, there are several reasons why we should be skeptical of the idea that they can be great leaders.
Point 1: Acting and leadership require different skills and expertise
In addition to the specific skills required for leadership, a good leader also needs to have a deep understanding of the context in which they are operating. This includes knowledge of the industry, the needs of their constituents, and the challenges they are facing. Actors, on the other hand, may not have this kind of real-world experience. While they may be skilled at pretending to be leaders on screen, this does not necessarily translate to their ability to lead in the real world.
1. Definitions (from Oxford)
- An example of an actor and great leader
- All of PRO’s examples are either not an actor or not a great leader
- Or, actors have a fundamental quality that precludes every single one of them from being a great leader
- Actor? Yes. He played a starring role in the TV series Servant of the People. [1]
- Great leader? Yes. Throughout the Russo-Ukrainian War, he has shown extraordinary leadership, more than enough to qualify him as a great leader, as described by several secondary sources. [2] [3] [4] [5]
- Actor? Yes. He played in many Hollywood films. [6]
- Great leader? Yes. According to several rankings of presidential performance from accredited sources, he has consistently been ranked “considerably above the normal or average.” [7]
- Actor? Yes, and also one of the most famous ones of all time. [8]
- Great leader? Yes. Although his legacy has been debated, he accomplished numerous reforms as Governor of California, including implementing water conservation standards, increasing diversity in government, and improving outdated infrastructure. [9]
First, it is important to note that the idea that "great actors can be great leaders" is a subjective and unproven claim. There is no clear evidence or research to support the idea that acting ability is directly correlated with leadership skills. In fact, many successful leaders throughout history have not been known for their acting abilities.
Furthermore, Reagan's presidency was not without controversy and criticism. He was often accused of being out of touch with the concerns and needs of ordinary Americans, and his policies disproportionately benefited the wealthy while harming marginalized and low-income communities.
For example, Reagan's economic policies, including tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts to social programs, contributed to the widening income inequality gap in the United States. According to a study by the Pew Research Center, the top 1% of Americans saw their incomes rise by 157% from 1979 to 2007, while the bottom 20% saw their incomes rise by just 20%. This trend has continued in the decades since Reagan's presidency, leading to significant economic and social disparities in the country.
Additionally, Reagan's foreign policy, including his support for authoritarian regimes and his role in the Iran-Contra scandal, has been widely criticized.
In conclusion, while Ronald Reagan may have been a successful president in some regards, it is not accurate to claim that he was a "great leader" based on the criteria of being a "great actor." His presidency was marked by controversial and harmful policies that had significant negative impacts on many Americans and on the country as a whole.
- Schwarzenegger's record on environmental issues was mixed. While it is true that he implemented water conservation standards, he also supported the expansion of offshore oil drilling and opposed efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that his commitment to environmental protection may have been limited.
- Schwarzenegger's efforts to increase diversity in government were insufficient. While he did appoint some people of color to high-level positions, the overall diversity of his administration did not significantly increase. Additionally, he faced criticism for appointing mostly men and white individuals to his cabinet.
- Schwarzenegger's infrastructure improvements were largely focused on highways and roads, rather than addressing other pressing needs such as affordable housing or public transportation. This may have benefited some groups more than others and failed to address the root causes of California's infrastructure challenges.
- Schwarzenegger's governance style was often criticized as being authoritarian and dismissive of the legislative process. He frequently used executive orders and vetoes to bypass the state legislature, leading to accusations of bypassing democratic checks and balances.
- Leadership is a complex and multifaceted quality that requires a range of skills and characteristics.
- According to research on leadership, effective leaders possess a variety of traits such as emotional intelligence, communication skills, self-awareness, integrity, and the ability to inspire and motivate others (source: Forbes).
- Being an actor may involve some of these skills, such as the ability to communicate effectively and to connect with an audience, but it does not guarantee that someone has all of the qualities that are necessary for effective leadership.
- Great leaders are often responsible for guiding and directing the efforts of a team or organization, and they must be able to make tough decisions that are in the best interests of their followers (source: Harvard Business Review).
- While actors may have to make some decisions in their careers, such as choosing roles or managing their public image, they may not have the same level of experience or expertise in decision-making as someone who has held leadership positions in other fields.
- The entertainment industry is often viewed as being superficial and focused on fame and glamour, which can make it difficult for actors to be taken seriously as leaders (source: Forbes).
- This perception may be compounded by the fact that actors are often in the public eye and may be judged more harshly for their personal conduct or any missteps they make.
- Ronald Reagan
- Arnold Schwarzenegger
- Volodymyr Zelenskyy
If the standard for then debate was "made the most good points without refutation" then CON would have won this debate pretty easily but it is not. PRO very wisely demonstrates that laying out definitions, burdens for proof, and wincons for a semantically focused argument can and should beat even a persuasive but undefined argument. CON should in future use that DESCRIPTION to lock in definitions, parameters, and burdens before the opponent takes that advantage away from the instigator.
As it stands PRO correctly, efficiently points out that can only indicates that it is possible for an actor to be great leader and since GREAT is a relative term, PRO wisely lowers the bar to simply above average. PRO very effectively locks in low burden for himself- all he has to do is find at least one above average leader who was also once an actor. PRO gives us three solid examples (although I am not convinced that Schwarzenegger was an above average governor) and takes the win.
CON essentially concedes the debate with " being an actor does not necessarily make someone a great leader." Nobody claimed as much, the only claim before us is whether at least one actor has ever proved to be an above average politician. Whatever your politics, Reagan clearly fits that bill.
Arguments to PRO. Excellent form on both sides but PRO understood that he who defines the match first with a legitimate standard is most likely to win on their terms.
The resolution needed more qualifiers. If someone worked as an actor, and was also a great leader, the resolution is true. Likely not in the vast majority of cases, but “can” is nearly
Impossibly open ended.
If someone’s time as an actor did not contribute to their leadership ability, misses the point that they did both. Nor do they need to be a great actor (I would however say they should have been a professional actor; otherwise all politicians are semantically actors)
pro brings up Volodymyr Zelenskyy, con does not refute his acting nor his leadership; therefore pro wins.
Thanks for the debate. Your organization, structure, and research are all excellent, and you have a lot of potential as a debater. I would advise you to be more careful when crafting the resolution - wording can make or break a debate.
Would any of you be willing to cast a fair vote on this debate?
All theatre performances involve leadership of some kind.
It’s not uncommon for more experienced actors/actresses with seniority to delegate commands to their proteges or even offer advice.
Kurt Russell is a brilliant actor. He is the star of quite a few of John Carpenter’s movies and he demonstrates his leadership ability in the characters he plays.
When you come to think about it, doesn't every great leader become an actor? I mean, they just become the mascot, the symbol of whatever they are leading. Few examples include Uncle Sam, Kentucky Fried Chicken, etc.
Ironically, that was one of the few debates where I intended no semantic maneuvers at all. I eventually included it because there is just 1000 characters remaining and I don't know what to do with it.
Yea, I've figured out by now that written debates are half semantics.
By the way, along with Barney, you're one of the two debaters whose style I studied extensively before I joined the website. I was impressed by your maneuvering of the definition of "innocent" in the "China is detaining innocent Uyghur Muslims" debate.
Well, welcome to DART, lad.
You two are giving me great ideas for semantic abuse ;)
Leader of what? A theatre? An Actor's Union? A southern railroad firm?
Yeah, the resolution is destroyed with one word.
Politician.
Not to mention Volodymyr Zelenskyy as well.
Indeed. Frankly, the instigator shot himself in the foot with this resolution. In order to win, he needs to prove that every single politician on this list is either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actor-politicians
a. not an actor
b. not a great leader
This seems like an impossible task.
Alcibiades is a classic example of this.
I'll take that bet.
My bet is that this has nothing to do with Ukraine.