Quentin Tarantino is a terrible director

I agree with all my opponents arguments, please extend them at this time. Also note my opponent instigated this debate as the CON, meaning they must prove the resolution false. Therefore when they say, and I quote, "What he IS a terrible director for is not maturing...." they fail to uphold the CON'a position because they prove the resolution true. Furthermore this is a blatant concession because they started the debate off agreeing with me. So please do not allow them to introduce more arguments because what will happen is they will become a moving target, shifting their advocacy round by round, creating an unfair debate. But finally, just in case, I will post a few reasons why Quentin Tarantino is a terrible director. DEFINITION(S): Quentin Tarantino: The man pictured in the link below. (http://api.ning.com...*CuoG1vYoNLKvn8G24XJe34JEWEvo9*LlkeQVsTndb/tarantino.jpg) Terrible: Very bad (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Contention 1: Tarantino is a very bad person because he has no morals Johann Hari writes, "He [Quentin Tarantino] has turned suffering into a merry joke. From Pulp Fiction to Kill Bill, he encourages the audience to chortle at torture and mutilation and anal rape. A typical punchline is -- whoops! -- a man being shot in the face. Where there should be a gag reflex, he gives us a gag. In Inglorious Basterds, a group of Jews undercover in Germany torture and scalp Nazis, and he gets the viewer to roar with laughter as people are carved up, alive and howling. "Violence in the movies can be cool," he says. "It's just another color to work with. When Fred Astaire dances, it doesn't mean anything. Violence is the same. It doesn't mean anything. It's a color." He scorns anyone who tries to see simulated violence as having meaning. With a laugh, he says: "John Woo's violence has a very insightful view as to how the Hong Kong mind works because with 1997 approaching and blah blah blah. I don't think that's why he's doing it. He's doing it because he gets a kick out of it." Praising Stanley Kubrik's direction of A Clockwork Orange, he says, "He enjoyed the violence a little too much. I'm all for that." In the slightly pretentious language of postmodernism, he is trying to separate the sign (movie violence) from the signified (real violence) -- leaving us floating in a sea of meaningless signs that refer to nothing but themselves and the sealed-off history of cinema. What's wrong with this vision? Why does it make me so queasy? I don't believe works of art should be ennobling. I don't believe the heroes should be virtuous, or that bad characters should get their comeuppance. It can show deeply violent and deeply cruel people, and tell us that -- as in real life -- they can be charismatic and successful and never pay a price for their cruelty. But what it should never do is tell us that human suffering itself is trivial. It should never turn pain into a punch-line. Violence has particular power on film precisely because it involuntarily activates our powers of empathy. We imagine ourselves, as an unthinking reflex, into the agony. This is the most civilizing instinct we have: to empathize with suffering strangers. (It competes, of course, with all our more base instincts.) Any work of art that denies this sense -- that is based on subverting it -- will ultimately be sullying. No, I'm not saying it makes people violent. But it does leave the viewer just a millimetre more morally corroded. Laughing at simulated torture -- and even cheering it on, as we are encouraged to through all of Tarantino's later films -- leaves a moral muscle just a tiny bit more atrophied." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) Contention 2: Critics find Tarantino terrible Dennis Lim puts it best when he says, "Quentin Tarantino concludes his seventh feature, the Nazi-bludgeoning fantasy Inglourious Basterds, with a grisly flourish and a self-satisfied review. Having performed one of his signature mutilations, a character peers down at his handiwork and into the camera and declares: "This might just be my masterpiece." This is typical Tarantino bluster, in keeping with the image of the bratty wunderkind that he worked hard to cultivate and that, even at 46, he refuses to outgrow. But as the rare filmmaker who's also an avid reader of film reviews, he also surely knows that it's been a while since the critical establishment thought of him as a maker of masterpieces." (http://www.slate.com...) Thank you and we ought to Affirm.