Boyhood should have been named Best Picture at the 87th Academy Awards

First off , I would like to start by informing the voters and audience of a recent development. When my opponent said " I could go further, but for the sake of time and characters I’ll stop here and wait to refute my opponent in the final round", he believed there were five rounds. He acknowledged this mistake via a private message. On another note, because of the complications in this debate, I will not post any closing statements, nor will I rebut my opponents last round. I will only rebut my opponents opening arguments. The voters will have to judge purely on these. RebuttalsTechnique"To argue on Boyhood’s behest and not mention it’s central concept would be negligent. So, for any who are not aware, Boyhood was made over the course of 12 years using the same 4 actors with additional characters popping up every once in a while. This gamble alone should have won Richard Linklater the Best Director Oscar (Which it did not! ). "A difficult or time consuming concept does not make a movie better. As I had stated, the difficulty to complete a film doesn't add to its effectivity in engaging and entertaining an audience. Instead we must see how this concept added to the film. For example, in Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining", there is a very famous scene without any cuts-(). Now this was a difficult procedure to pull off, but the simple difficulty of it isn't why it is so famous. It is the effectivity of it and how the no cut method was used perfectly. Each time Danny (the child) turns a corner, there is quite a bit of suspense built up and we fear for Danny. This suspense/excitement adds to the movie. My opponent has made no mention as to how this adds to the film. I argue it doesn't. If we did not know of this 12 year gimmick when watching the film, would the movie be worse? How could we know whether or not they used the same actors? How does using the same actors add to the film? My opponent has not stated this, making this point null. Nostalgia"One thing that Boyhood seldom gets criticism for is its use of nostalgia. Depicting the adolescence of one of kid, Boyhood is the perfect throwback film for anyone of this generation. "As I had stated in my opening arguments, this nostalgia is cheap. Simply playing back moments we all went through is cheap. I had said:"However, while nostalgia is a useful tool, it is not what should control a film. If nostalgia is all you can feel, then a film is taking advantage of your emotions and memories to try to replicate the feeling we had at the time. This just seems cheap and tacky. It can’t make you feel emotions through writing a good scene, so it just brings back nice memories. A very flawed method indeed. " I stand by this. Acting"Right alongside writing with the same dichotomy of criticism and praise is Boyhood’s acting. While audiences mostly criticize Ellar Coltrane’s performance, Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette have had their fair share of bashing. My argument is that what some may view as bland and emotionless, others may view as low-key and underplaying the scene. " A movie cannot be both bland and "low-key". Underplaying a scene is to play a part with subtlety. However, the acting is not subtle, but instead boring. This excludes Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arqueete, but the main character's acting should be stellar in a good film. Instead, Ellar Coltrane has little to no emotion. He is never seen crying or showing fear. He never signifies emotion in his voice. He just reads, in a monotone voice and face. These are my rebuttals. Since my opponent only rebutted one of my points, and I rebutted three of his, I have many more valid points. The voters must now decide the quality of each rebuttal, and decide the winner.