Fame shouldnt be so accesible.

Pro's last round was a joke. She has done absolutely nothing to defend her case or further her argument against mine. In the last round, I outlined Pro's contentions and here is how she responded: First, she agrees, "Yes! We are paying for their fame! " in reference to famous people. What does that have to do with anything? She completely ignored my point, which was that nobody is forcing someone to buy a celebrity's album, photo, a magazine that they're on the cover on, a movie ticket to see a movie that they're starring in, etc. Those are things that people do voluntarily and as such it can not be used to make Pro's case. If she doesn't think that she should be contributing to someone's wealth who doesn't deserve it, then she can take measures to not support that celebrity. In a capitalistic society, people are free to spend their money however they see fit. Supply and demand regulates costs too; if people weren't so willing to spend big bucks on entertainment or celebrities themselves, then they wouldn't be paid as much. Since she has not refuted this reality at all, my point stands. Second, Pro said in regard to her irrelevant point about Megan Fox, "Fame does make people arrogant! Im sure they would even admit to that. " Uhh, what does one have to do with the other? She responded with nothing of substance to my point that her Angelina Jolie quip was irrelevant, and also, I agreed in the last round that fame made people arrogant. However, you'll notice that Pro completely ignored my points: Sure, fame makes people arrogant, but success of any kind can make people arrogant. In order for this to be a legitimate argument, Pro would have to prove that we should eliminate and diminish any act that promotes arrogance. That is simply an unsound ideal. Plus, if someone is arrogant to the point of their detriment, then that is their problem. Nobody has to cater to arrogance or foster it; people make the conscious decision to feed people's egos, etc. Then Pro shifts into talking about Jackass again out of nowhere. Her point was nonsensical and completely incomprehensible. "Though jackass has been a sucess, it still didnt reach no1 , in terms of entertainment, I mean look at how many other shows are copyrighting his skills etc! " . .. What? Anyway then Pro introduces an entirely new argument in her final round, stating that fame can cause psychological problems that can have damaging effects on a person. She suggests that we discourage the youth from wanting to seek fame. First of all, I've already demonstrated the perks of fame, so to discourage people from seeking success in that way would be unjust. Second, fame does not affect everybody to a negative extent. For those that are affected, they should either take means to rectify that (see therapists. .. and most of them do) or avoid the spotlight. Also, most who sought fame - the kind Pro is arguing against in her case - chose to be famous; they did so fully knowing of the liberties or privacy they might lose. They made their choices because they perceived or predicted that the positives would outweigh the negatives. They often do. Pro next begins a new argument about how celebrities don't have their own voice. I say that this isn't the case. First, celebrities choose and hire their staff to speak for them. Second, a celebrity is first and foremost his or her own person - not merely a product. They might take some heat for being an individual, but in the end, they can no matter what. Third, often when famous people speak out, they have nothing of substance to say anyway. I mean do people really care what Kanye West has to say? The point here is that each celebrity is responsible for their own actions and their own voice, or lack thereof. This has nothing to do with the resolution at hand. Next, once again Pro offers a brand new argument. She complains about "the industry" setting amateur's goals too high before they can finish with their education to pursue their acting goals. Uh, so what? This is true about EVERY industry, most notably the sports industry. This happens in the business industry as well. Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college because he became a millionaire in the tech world (Facebook). Often people leave school to enter the workforce instead, especially if they have a family job or a public service job line up for them. This also applies to the military in some cases. So, Pro once again presents a useless argument in defense of the resolution at hand. Pro continues to try and present some criteria that people should have in order to be famous. She lists years of hard work and dedication as part of that criteria. How does this apply to those who become famous through politics or scandal? It doesn't, therefore this suggestion is entirely flawed and unreliable. It's also impractical and damn near impossible. Furthermore, sometimes the more talented people are less experienced. What about them? Should talent not be a prime criteria and more important, useful and practical than experience? Anyhow, Pro writes, "Perhaps con seems to think the industry has became bigger? .. .No these people are so desperate and consumed in all the fame perceptions, they use there ways to become someone bigger, and these industries exploit that nature. " I have absolutely no idea what she's talking about here. Nor do I have any idea what she's talking about in the rest of her round. Her spelling, grammar and entire lack of continuity in terms of her argument as well as basic, elementary sentence structure has made me completely unaware of what she was trying to say. She never really made any points; she simply said that I didn't make any when in fact everything I said was backed up and supported with facts and examples. In conclusion, I think that my position in this argument has been clear and consistent all along. Few people - most of who wish have a strong desire to become famous - achieve fame. For those who have no desire to become famous but do anyway, it's probably because they're involved in a type of scandal that the public would benefit from knowing about, therefore even if fame is bad for them, it's good for others. For those who wish to seek fame regardless of the potential negatives, they may jeopardize their mental stability or privacy willingly because of the perks that they'd get (attention, money, VIP passes, opportunities, recognition, etc. ). Everyone is responsible for their own actions, and each has the right to seek whatever dreams they please so long as others are not hurt in the process. The media is basically working together with the people to create fame; if the people stop being interested in certain people, the media will too, and thus you cannot blame the media for making people famous. Pro has not proven why fame should not be so easily accessible. She also hasn't provided a sufficient means of ensuring that this is the case.