"High Noon" was better than "Rio Bravo"

1.1"In round 2 you have stated "Better actors/acting, mainly Gary Cooper being better than John Wayne." well I promise you Gary Cooper is not better than John Wayne." All the evidence I provided in Round 2 refutes this statement. "John Wayne outclasses Gary Cooper anyday. Both are pretty good actors, but when you see they are a pretty even match against each other, you need to look into the actor's life and what they did." First off, in what universe do you measure acting talent by social achievements?! And aside from that, I have already clearly shown that Gary Cooper is considered a better actor than John Wayne—especially by professionals in the film industry. "When you wrote a better actor, you have stated that this person is better than that person. In that case John Wayne was far a better person and "actor" than Gary Cooper." That's incorrect. When I say someone is a "better actor" I am saying that his acting and ONLY acting is better than the other's. In the English language, you do not simply separate every word in a sentence and use it how you wish. The adjective "better" is being used to describe the acting of the "actor". There are rules for grammar and using phrases "in context" that you have failed to follow in your misinterpretation of my sentence, so your point completely moot. "My satingof the ratings on IMB can only help me more, since what my point was that the ratings are pretty close. This is a point I believe I have proved, which is that the movies are pretty close. You can'tjust say a movie review website is unpofesional since if you can allow the use of Wikidpedia, which is a resource website that can be edited by anyone who pleases." I will ignore all the typographical and grammatical errors you made there even though I should really disregard this statement because of them. First off, ratings can be "close" but that does not mean one movie is not better than the other. If they had the same score, then you might have had something; but they do not. And Wikipedia articles are constantly reviewed, edited and re-edited by experts to ensure the legitimacy and quality of the article. In fact, just try saying something incorrect on a Wikipedia article. It usually gets taken down within an hour. On film review sites however, even a 7-year-old who has not seen a movie, can make an account and give the movie any rating he or she wants. Any reasonable will agree that this cannot be used as solid evidence because while errors on Wikipedia articles can be edited and corrected, a horrible movie rating given by someone who is not an expert cannot be taken down. "To your 1.3 argument or rebuttal all I can say is that people helping each oth and standing aginst evil is what we grew up knowing." That is definitely not what I grew up knowing and that means nothing here anyway. "Because there ia huge evidence to back, Rio Bravo's decision. The evidence is America itself. America in the beginnning was weak, but as times passed the people had to group up togther to fight for their beliefs." First off, not everyone in America stood up against Britain. The Founding Fathers were some of those "precious few" I referenced earlier, who have the courage to commit whast was then treason for their beliefs. Other examples would be the soldiers who enlisted in the American army. However, many were afraid that they would lose the war and didn't support the revolution. In fact, many wanted the King of England to remain in control of the colonies…they were called "Loyalists". There were also people who were afraid to side with either group, called "Neutrals". Many characters in "High Noon" exactly parallel this. The same goes for several other revolutions, namely the French Revolution which had a VERY strong opposition in the populace. "the American people themselves had to stand up toghter, rather tha having only one person standing up to fight for what he or she thought was true." "This is simply true , unless you want to state that the America was wwon by person only. Tomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Georege Washington, and the people won the war togther , not by standiong alone." "High Noon" is not saying that only one person is courageous. Gary Cooper symbolizes both the government and the armed forces of a country. They should know what is best for the country and fight to protect the country's interests, even when the people don't realize it is for their own good and as a result oppose their decision. And the Founding Fathers were actually a huge minority at the time, though they represent what eventually became the government of the USA. As I said earlier, many people opposed their decision. I am sorry but your summary is pretty incomprehensible, to be honest. I have trouble understanding exactly what you are trying to get across in that last sentence. Summary Based on the aforementioned evidence, Gary Cooper was a better actor than John Wayne. This, as well as my point about the supporting cast in Round 2, which my opponent failed to address, cements my statement that the acting in "High Noon" was much better than in "Rio Bravo". "High Noon" "High Noon" won many awards and accolades, whereas "Rio Bravo" won none. "High Noon" is also widely recognized as one of the best films of all time: it is ranked #27 on the AFI list of top 100 films...."Rio Bravo" is not even on that list. Thus, "High Noon" was better cinematically. Finally, "High Noon" has a more accurate portrayal of society in times of extreme danger. As such, "High Noon" is better than "Rio Bravo". Thank you to my opponent Nerdykiller for giving me such a great first debate on this site. I hope to debate you further in the future. Thanks to all for following/voting!