everybody likes to argue about their FAVORITE MOVIE!!!!

It seems my opponent is getting quite hostile towards me. Calling me such names as "childish" and "immature. " Let me just note that I am not the one calling names here. My opponent states in his first paragraph that he was just apologizing and not saying that I was right. I am going to list several examples that prove that what he said is a false statement. 1. ) Early in Round 2 I said: "In my opponent's first point he contradicted himself. .. " My opponent then, in Round 3, goes on to say: ". .. it does appear that I have contradicted myself. .. " therefore making my statement correct and agreeing that I am RIGHT. 2. ) In Round 3, 7th paragraph, my opponent says flat out: ". .. the Pro again attacks my use of my opinions of the director. I again apologize because he is correct. " He blatantly states that I am RIGHT, once again. 3. ) Also in Round 3, 8th paragraph, my opponent yet again says: ". .. I do agree with him. .. " claiming that I was RIGHT. 4. ) Finally, 9th paragaph Round 3, my opponent states: "The Con also mentions how gross profits do not determine if a film is nominated, and that certainly makes sense. " He is agreeing with me which makes what I said, CORRECT. FOUR times, ladies and gentlemen, my opponent proved that I was right. He then goes on to say that I am not right? It seems that he is aware that he has dug himself a hole. He frantically tries to get out but he just keeps going deeper. I am only going to argue my opponents last two paragraphs. I feel as though his other paragraphs do not even relate to the topic at hand. All he does is bash me. My opponent gives a poor summary of why Amadeus should have won. Although, he bases most of his summary off of the fact that Amadeus was a true story, with true facts, and actual events. If that is why it won "Best Picture" than it wouldn't make sense that The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King won "Best Picture" in 2003. I don't know about you guys, but I sure haven't heard of Mordor. I also believe that Return of the King is rife with violence. My opponent has yet to make a reasonable argument on why Amadeus won "Best Picture. " All we know now is that Amadeus is about Mozart, follows a realistic plot, and teaches life lessons. I, on the other hand, made the argument that both actors and directors did their part extremely well in order to make a great film. Red Dawn had action, suspense, emotion, and it gave a great deal of people patriotism in America. If going by my opponents standards of why somthing should win, then I could say that Red Dawn was completely realistic back in the days of the Cold War. It is also about highschool students turned guerilla fighters who fought to secure freedom for their country. We see this all the time in our lives today. (Vietnam, Iraq, etc. ) Therefore, that makes Red Dawn realistic. My opponent also says that my film didn't receive an award or even get nominated. If I remember correctly, the topic of this debate "Think of your favorite movie right now. .. .. . Now try to remember if you thought it should have won best picture the year it came out. Did it? Maybe it did but it probably didn't, but you think it should have won right? " He clearly stays that "Maybe it did but it probably didn't. .. " Just because Amadeus was nominated for multiple awards and actually won doesn't mean that's WHY it won "Best Picture. " So, my opponent can't possibly argue that just because my film wasn't nominated and didn't win awards means that it shouldn't have won "Best Picture. " In conclusion, all I can really see in this round is that my opponent is furious at me, and he briefly and poorly represents his film. His arguments for his movie winning is that it was realistic, and base upon true events. As we can see, those do not even matter considering Lord of the Rings won in 2003.