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
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.