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

Ok first of all I was apologizing for basing my argument on my opinions, not because i think you are right because your certainly are not. The Pro then takes one of my quotes completely out of context, I never believed that a communist invasion of america was impossible, I was stating that the events based off of such an invasion that took place in the movie were impossible. Those events include the breakdown of NATO, the communist revolution of Mexico, and no extensive use of nuclear weapons between the two nations. Stop taking words out of their context, it is very immature... The Pro then tries to justify using commercial airliners as bases for launching paratroopers by saying that the hijackers of airplanes on 9/11 did the same thing. First of all that is not what happened, 19 people on four different flights bypassed security, hijacked the airplanes, and then turned them into missiles. In the movie the Russians would have had to slip hundreds of Russian troops onto dozens of civilian airliners, armed with automatic weapons not box cutters like the 9/11 terrorists were, and then deploy from these commercial airliners all over America at the same time..... THAT is completely unrealistic. The Pro then moans about how I pointed out that he used opinions in his arguments like I did, he then says i rubbed salt in his wounds because he claims that I exposed some of his opinions in his original arguments. The Pro feels that I shouldn't be allowed to expose his arguments as opinionated because my arguments were also opinionated, yet the Pro states that all arguments rely on some opinion. The Pro is trying to use opinions to reinforce his arguments but he whines about how I shouldn't be able to use opinions for mine... The Pro then states that he personally did not say how he thought voting films for awards should not be based on the stardom of the cast. The Pro did not say it but he used that very quote in his argument to state how gross profits do not determine which movies are nominated for awards. I then used the same quote to debunk his original argument in the first round, which is perfectly legal because I am also showing what qualities people look for when nominating movies for best picture. People should not nominate movies based on the stardom of the cast, yet that is exactly what the Pro did when he tried to defend why Red Dawn should have won Best Picture. Round 3 was not me apologizing and saying the Pro was right. I was stating how i should have not based my original argument solely on my own opinions of the movie. I conceded nothing to the Pro because in the last argument I used the Pro's own evidence against him and he went off on a tantrum because of it. I was trying to act as a gentleman by admitting that my style of argument may have been informal. But instead of respecting my apologies and reinforcing his own argument he childishly attacks me for showing weakness and claiming that he has always been right when he has been wrong. Let me now take this time to state why Amadeus was better than Red Dawn so that the Pro can stop whining about it. First of all Amadeus was a very well structured movie that is based on actual events of an actual historical person and the story line of the film follows the life of that character (Mozart) through his entire life. Red Dawn on the other hand was an under-budgeted movie filmed in the backwoods of Colorado in a town that a majority of Americans never even heard of that is based off of multiple unfeasible events where high school students and Russian soldiers shoot at each other for the whole damn movie. Amadeus was a movie where the character of Mozart gives many life lessons that people in the audience can interpret and learn valuable life experiences from. Red Dawn is a movie based purely on action and violence where when nobody is shooting at each other there is still someone doing something barbaric, violent, and stupid (like drinking deer blood). Amadeus was also a movie that was critically acclaimed for the portrayals of characters in the film whereas Red Dawn did not receive a single nomination for acting skills from ANY academy, organization, etc. which I think reinforces the fact about how a great majority of people in 1984 - 1985 felt that Amadeus was a far better film than Red Dawn. There is my argument. Red Dawn should not have won Best Picture because Amadeus was a far more believable and relatable film that followed the progression and life lessons of a famous musician whereas Red Dawn is a movie that is just violence and gory acts of shooting that is based on a very unrealistic series of events that occurred during a communist invasion of America. Hopefully voters can now see that the Pro no longer has a standing argument for why the film should have won Best Picture. His original argument was based completely on the fact that the film had a cast of actors who were very famous and and that the director had a history of commercially successful films. That does not justify why a poorly designed and executed movie like Red Dawn should have won best picture over a more well designed film such as Amadeus....