Rotten Tomatoes is the best way to identify a good film

While Rotten Tomatoes is without a doubt a very good site for evaluating movies before you see them, I will argue that there are still better ways. I will argue three alternatives that I feel are more effective than Rottentomatoes. Because the resolution says that RT is the "best", I only need to win one to disprove the resolution. 1. Metacritic (1) Metacritic is very similar to Rotten Tomatoes. It offers access to reviews from virtully every movie and gives a general score as to how critics rate the film. There are two key differences it has from RT, however. First, in addition to movies, Metacritic also evaluates Television shows, video games, and albums. Because the word Film (2) is defined as "a series of moving pictures, usually shown in a cinema or on television and often telling a story", Metacritic has a key advantage here because it not only scores movies, but does TV shows as well. This surely makes it better than RT becaue it scores the entire spectrum of films. Secondly, the two sites are different in that RottenTomatoes primarily gives the pecent of critics who gave the film a positive review. Metacritic's focus is giving a score of one out of 100. Metacritic has the advantage here because it is more specific. If a critic submits his review on Rottentomatoes, we know whether or not he likes the film, but we dont know how much, since RT focuses only on whether the review was positive or negative. Metacritic, however, gives a very specific score of 1-100, so we know exactly how good the film was in the person's opinion. 2. IMBD (3) The Internet Movie Databse is also similar to RT, so I'll keep this short. Its basically RT, except it gives you instant access to the trailer of the film once you find the movie on its database. Trailers help one decide if the movie is worth watching or not, so giving instant access to these give IMBD a key advantage 3. Friends Of course, critics aren't always right. A review by a complete stranger can easily not reflect your own opinion. For example, I thought Will Smith's movie, Seven Pounds, was simply amazing and almost made me cry, which is very unusual for me. But RT only gave it a 26% positive rating. Conversely, Slumdog Millionaire scored in the high 90's on most critic sites, but I thought it suffered from poor pronunciation and atrocious placement of captions, making it hard to follow. But friends typically have similar likes and dislikes as you do. This means that if they have seen the movie before, they can likely give a much more accurate description of the movie relative to your tastes. This gives them an instant advantage over any other movie site, which encompasses Rotten Tomatoes. Onto his arguments: Pro: RT gives a quick critic concenus of the film, links to reviews, and averages the scores of all critics. Response: Metacritic and IMBD do the exact same things. Except, I give unique advantages that each of these have over RT. Against the pro advocacy in general: While he has argued that RT is an effective way to indentify a good movie, he has not even attempted to prove that it is the best. I listed benefits that my chosen methods have as well, the difference being that I compared them to opposing sites. This means pro fails the burden of proof because he has not explained why any of RT's advantages are unique to just that site. I urge a con vote. 1. http://www.metacritic.com... 2. http://dictionary.cambridge.org... 3. http://www.imbd.com...