Fame shouldnt be so accesible.

PRO'S ARGUMENTS: 1) People become famous for being jackasses. 2) We're paying - literally - for people's fame. 3) Megan Fox shouldn't compare herself to Angelina Jolie. 4) Fame makes people arrogant. 5) Famous people are critiqued like crazy; this can damage their career. 6) People should be famous for being talented; amateurs are becoming famous at the expense of others. CON'S REBUTTAL: 1) Yes, it's true that people can become famous literally for acting like a jackass. However, the success of those on the Jackass show, for instance, is largely in part due to the fact that the show - for whatever reason - has a lot of fans. Of course certain people become famous despite many people not liking them or their act, i.e. Carrot Top. However, the vast majority of famous people are celebrities because people enjoy what they do. Even Paris Hilton didn't achieve her height of fame as an heiress until her show The Simple Life came out. Sure, many people may think that she's retarded and not deserve fame; however, the reality is that people actually WATCHED the show. Regardless of their opinion of her, she achieved the spotlight because people kept her in the public eye. Remember, the media (magazines, for instance) aren't going to put just anyone on the cover of their magazine. Instead, they're going to go for someone who can get the magazine to SELL because they catch the interest of the public. By the audience constantly talking about or being interested in a celebrity, they're going to make that celebrity famous. People enjoy being entertained, even if it's at the expense (making fun) of others. Just because Pro may not like the show Jackass doesn't mean that others don't love it. I fail to see how the stars of this show therefore don't deserve success. After all, they meet my opponent's criteria for what people SHOULD be famous for, and that is having a talent or doing something with that talent. Apparently the stars of Jackass are good at making fools of themselves, engaging in ridiculous behavior, pulling off crazy antics, and making people laugh in the process. Good for them. 2) Pro also mentioned that we're paying big bucks for people's fame. I fail to see how this is relevant to the resolution at all. 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. 3) Pro has a problem with Megan Fox comparing herself to Angelina Jolie because A.J. is Pro's idol. While I can sympathize with her frustration, I fail to see how this is relevant to the affirmative's case. Moreover, Pro says that just because a lot of people might be exposed to the comparison that a lot of people must CARE about the comparison. This is not true. I'm exposed to things every day that I don't care about; for instance, today I've heard several times already that the Arizona Cardinals lost a baseball game last night. Big deal. Some people might care or be interested in this news, but most probably don't. The same logic applies to Megan Fox's declaration. I personally think that Pro's concern about Fox's statement is dramatic, irrelevant and unnecessary. 4) 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. 5) I've already explained in the last round how fame can hurt people's careers. As I've said, fame comes at a price. The counter to the scrutiny that comes with being in the public eye is the fact that most famous people PROFIT off of being in the spotlight. Whether the people's opinion of them is good or bad, either way being in the public eye is usually a profitable experience. For instance, consider "Octomom" who many people condemn for having so many children despite not being financially stable. She is bashed left and right; however, because she's become famous as a result of these criticisms, she's making money off of it. Now I suppose this is where Pro will say "This is exactly my point" however this is exactly MY point. Octomom didn't make herself famous; PEOPLE made her famous. For whatever BS reason, people still feel the need to take interest in her and her life. They are feeding into her fame. This is neither good nor bad - it just is. And, like I said, people can take away the fame as easily as they gave her the fame. For instance, does anybody really give a hoot about Leif Garrett anymore? Nope. But he was once as famous and popular as ever. As far as fame being damaging to one's career, that is a risk in almost any profession. As I said, people usually profit off of their fame for one reason or another, so this is almost irrelevant. Additionally, Pro failed to respond to several aspects of my last case including the fact that people becoming famous for their crimes can sometimes be a good thing. For instance, Governor Elliot Spitzer of New York became famous for spending government money on prostitutes; I'd say that this is one instance where fame damaging one's career would be a GOOD thing. Before the scandal, only people in New York had ever really heard of Spitzer. The point here is that fame being a downside to a celebrity's career is kind of moot; it's only because that they're already famous could this even happen. 6) Finally Pro complains that more talented people are being ignored because amateurs or those with considerably less talent are stealing the spotlight instead. This again is irrelevant and too bad, so sad for them. In the music industry, for instance, it's not just talent which gains one recognition but rather their marketability. Since the industry is about making money, this is a reasonable ideal. If it weren't about making money and instead just the love of music, then artists wouldn't seek out record deals and instead enjoy their music amongst themselves and friends, family, etc. Obviously musicians and other celebrities WANT to become famous, i.e. recognized, so again this is a totally moot point offered by the Pro. If someone is talented and yet not famous, then they have to accept that fame is fickle just like other industries are fickle. If they can't accept that, then perhaps they should seek a new or more stable industry. At the very least, they can/should rely on themselves for fame instead of banking on someone else (i.e. an agent) to get it for them. If they can't get it on their own, then that's their fault/problem. CONCLUSION: I'd like to note that Pro has failed to respond to some of my key arguments, including the main fact that claim isn't EASILY accessible as she implies in both R1 and the very resolution itself. If it were, then more people would be famous. Additionally, there's nothing inherently wrong or dangerous about one being famous, and people can always choose to diminish their chances of being in the spotlight, and/or contribute to one's removal of being in the spotlight. Moreover, certain people being famous is actually beneficial to the public. There is no specific criteria for fame nor can it be regulated. So back to you, Pro.