Carly Rose Sonenclar Should've Won X Factor Season 2

That's fine, I'll just rebut that. I'd like to remind my opponent that the last round is for rebuttal and summing up only. For my rebuttal, I intend to unpick the subjective opinions, miscalculations, assumptions and simple flaws which lie at the heart of my opponent's case; so as to demonstrate that CRS is not all she's made up to be. Then, I shall move into my own substantives. My opponent's argument is based on the misassumption that CRS is obviously more deserving of fame and fortune than Tate Stevens (NB: this is my opponent's SUBJECTIVE OPINION), which I will seek to demonstrate is incorrect with my rebuttal, but my substantives will focus on why winning The X Factor is a poisoned chalice anyway. Rebuttal I: "Carly was only 13 when she walked out on the X Factor stage. She was shy" - clashes with - "[Tate Stevens] just got the pity vote. "In terms of the message my opponent is trying to propagate, these two statements are completely contradictory. You cannot use CRS's age and shyness as a reason to vote for her whilst also criticising people for - allegedly - voting for Tate Stevens purely because they felt sorry for him. This is complete double standards from the obviously biased Proposition. Either people should vote with their heart - in which case they would take into account CRS's demeanour and Stevens's financial issues - or they vote with their head and ignore both factors. By suggesting that people should base their votes on CRS's personality and not Stevens's background, my opponent is giving a completely self-contradictory message. Rebuttal II: "Her voice was so much more mature than a 13 year old's. "This point is irrelevant because vocal maturity is irrelevant to talent and popularity. Justin Bieber shot to fame at the age of 13 with a very immature voice, yet he still attracted crowds of supporters and is genuinely talented (despite the criticism levelled against him). Therefore, CRS's vocal maturity is irrelevant as it does not dictate talent/success. Rebuttal III: "It was like a full grown professional adult singing, every time! "So were Stevens's performances - adult and consistent. Neither ever hit the bottom 2. I re-iterate that, by your own policy that we shouldn't take Steven's situation into account, we shouldn't be giving her bonus points for her age. Rebuttal IV: "You kind of would have a job if you were in The X Factor's top 3! "Taking examples from the UK edition (as there have been more of them) many acts who finish in the Top 3 fade into obscurity very quickly indeed. Being in the Top 3 is no guarantee of everything. Ask the average Briton who Ben Mills, Amelia Lily, Eoghan Quigg or Leon Jackson are and they will simply look at you blankly. Rebuttal V: "Even third place winners, Fifth Harmony, were quickly signed to a record label. "Most acts who get through to the final stages of talent shows get signed. Most are also dropped after one album because it flops. Chances are that Fifth Harmony will fall into this category. Anyway, if you're concerned about CRS getting a record deal, she's already been picked up by Syco Music, so the eventual goal has been achieved anyway. Rebuttal VI: "The X Factor is a show about good singers, not sad stories. "If The X Factor is all about the singing, then all your previous arguments about CRS's age are rendered completely invalid. Stevens is a good singer, just clearly not to your taste. Rebuttal VII: "Carly would've won if they had gone on one more week. "Incorrect. Fans knew precisely where people were finishing each week as - unlike in the UK version of the show - it was revealed each week. Stevens won for two weeks, then CRS for two weeks, then Stevens again. The voting was clearly close and so this statement is an assumption. Prove it. Rebuttal VIII: "Fifth Harmony fans would've voted for Carly. "Unwarranted statement. Prove it. Rebuttal IX: "It is simply insane that Carly, a 13 year old of extreme and rare talent, lost to a 40 year old country singer. "Double standards again, you've already set the precedent that we shouldn't take their ages into account. You have not demonstrated that CRS is more talented than Stevens, just that you personally prefer CRS. Therefore, taking talent out of the equation, it comes down to country versus pop. It would appear that country won on the night. Therefore, nothing is "insane" about this result. Rebuttal X: "What is it with country singers winning EVERYTHING nowadays, anyway? "Again, the Proposition has simply given us their own subjective opinion. What is it with Justin Bieber being popular? What is it with One Direction's hair? WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH TREES? I could go on. Rebuttal XI: "It was completely unfair that Tate Stevens won. "He got the most votes - surely it would have been more unfair if Lopez and Kardashian had announced that CRS won despite receiving fewer votes from the public? It is completely 'fair', as that's how TV talent shows work. I hope my rebuttal proves my point, that all the Proposition have done is give their own subjective opinions. Moving onto some substantives. Substantive I: 13 year olds can't be trusted with $5millionI don't wish to offend my opponent, who I understand to be 12, but minors shouldn't be given this much money simply to play with. I'm 16, and I acknowledge that I shouldn't be trusted with $5million. The winner of The X Factor receives a guaranteed payment of $1million per year for 5 years, the largest prize in US television history. It will work out for the best that CRS does not get access to this sort of money (which, judging from her talent, I've no doubt she will) until she is both older and a bit more weary of the music industry. She will then have a better idea of how to spend it well and responsibly, as opposed to simply buying 20 ponies and the world's largest caterpillar cake within a week of receiving the first payment. It's an extreme example, but in general young people and vast amounts of unprotected money should not mix. Substantive II: By not winning, CRS will encounter more mainstream successIt is the bizarre legacy of TV talent shows that those who come out of them best are those who do not win. Take the global phenomenon One Direction, who featured on the British version of The X Factor. They came third on the 2010 series of the show, yet have become the most successful talent show act ever and ambassadors for the franchise. Because they did not win they had more creative freedom, an underdog status, and the ability to craft a record deal which suited them as artists and as a group. By not winning, CRS is in an enviable position. She has demonstrated that she is hugely popular and has several record companies waiting at her door. She can now choose the company she wants, mould a record deal she wants, and retain greater artistic control over her career than if she had simply been shoehorned into a prewritten deal. She'll be able to retain the things which make her Carly, and made her so popular. Summary of the Second Speech for the OppositionThe Proposition have, essentially, just said "I don't like Stevens, I prefer CRS, therefore she should have won. " This is all subjective, unwarranted material. We have demonstrated that Stevens and CRS are equal on talent and that there is no good reason for the ruling to be overturned. Essentially, the Proposition is being a bit of a sore loser. We've knocked down all the arguments why CRS "should've won", and given our own as for why this situation will eventually turn out for the best for Carly. With all this, we urge you to Vote Con! Back to the Proposition - I remind them that this speech should solely consist of rebuttal and summing up, and cannot contain new substantives.