Instigator / Pro
7
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4106

Cinderella Man is the best movie for male role models.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Sir.Lancelot
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
6
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description

The traits which male role models embody.: Strength, honor, integrity, assertiveness, leadership, bravery, and responsibility.

On-balance.

Rules:
1. This is on-balance, so Con must choose his own movie as the best one for male role models in round 1. It can only be one movie.
2. The movie that best emphasizes each of the qualities mentioned above wins the debate.
3. 2 sources minimum.
4. Scenes from the movie must be used as examples to match the characteristics listed above.
5.One forfeit is the loss of a conduct point. Two is an auto-loss.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Sir.Lancelot

I just got my voting rights back. Sorry I wasn't quick enough. If yall would like, I do have a debate with Lemming that just went to voting though. That, and I have a debate with Sir.Lancelot, RM, that needs to be voted. Only if yall got time.

-->
@Barney

No worries.
Thanks for trying!

Seems we can't currently change debates from standard to rated, and all open rated ones are now standard. With a little luck this hiccup will be fixed this weekend.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame

ibid

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame

Same as lancelot please, I was in 0 unrated debates before this update

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame

I give consent for any debates me and him are currently in or are in the Voting Stage.

Could I also have these debates switched to rated? They started off rated originally when they were both accepted by a new account, but mysterious person plagiarized in one of them and then conceded all of the rounds in both and never logged back on.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/4154-global-warming-is-a-hoax
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4151-capital-surveillance-inhibits-the-progress-of-society

If it's against the rules to revert these two back, you don't need to worry about it. ^.^

-->
@RationalMadman

I’d be good to do that so long as both sides agree to shift it to rated. Do you have any debates that you currently want changed?

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame

This was unrated, I noticed and kept my mouthshut because *** you. Please make all my debates rated.

-->
@Barney

When I finish up some more of my debates, I intend to focus more of my debates on Movies, Sports, or Politics.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

That one sounds really good!

I was just joking around with the Sheriff of Nottingham, but those characters sound so perfectly conflicted!

-->
@Barney

Zatoichi Challenged (1967) might be on equal footing as that movie.

Samurais are normally portrayed as the good guys but they’re vilified in this storyline. A man is caring for a woman and a child while being hunted down by a samurai.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zatoichi_Challenged

Got to say, if anyone ever feels like someone is acting stalkeresque towards them, they should probably not go into said stalkers open debate challenges.

Fuck.

Lamest comeback ever. 😂😂😂

sure thing wannabe batman

Are we back to name-calling again, Rat-Man?

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

he was not on it to begin with, cheers. Failed stalker.

RM.

Don’t tell me you removed him from your friends’ list because of this.

Watch the language.

-->
@Barney

**** you

---Vote Update---
I wrongly assigned pro sources. He used movie clips to get this lead, and they are the topic of the debate so speak to the style of arguments instead of sources.

This leaves sources as them both doing their due diligence, plus con mentions Rocky and the stuff about memory (which he didn't do much analysis on in his case, mostly just thrown out there letting it speak for itself). Pro defends well against Rocky, as fictional with a focus on the glory of the violence, whereas Cinderella Man focuses on the duel nature of impacts to family (con made it duel nature with the toxic side to it).

...

However, this points the style points of executing his case so well with those sources falling under the preview of argument allotments. This tips the scale towards pro's favor on arguments due to skill at execution. While it is largely pathos, that is part of making an argument more convincing. It is very close to outright giving him arguments, but I'll leave them tied in respect for the well performed job by both sides turning this one into a toss-up.

-->
@RationalMadman

A couple things from the voting policy...

"All other point categories connect to arguments, ideally enhancing them, but may be weighted separately; particularly if the awardee for arguments nevertheless fell short in another area so as to mitigate their margin of victory."
AND
"It is necessary to explain all awarded points, but a mitigating point against your primary point recipient need not be as detailed for the vote to remain if not good, at least borderline."

To use an analogy, in my voting paradigm earning points is pushing something uphill against an increasing incline. If someone gains arguments, and is in the lead on sources but not by too much, I will probably leave sources tied. This mentality came about due to fluff votes, where people would try to assign more points than the other side, rather than being willing to admit fault to their preferred side.

In this case, your degree of victory was mitigated. Whereas if I favored pro on arguments, sources would be harder for him to earn on top of that.

...

"Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
"The subject of the debate… E.g., in a biblical debate, preferring one side’s analysis of the bible itself already speaks directly to the argument points, not exceptional sourcing."

In review, I did violate this, as movie clips from the two are more akin to the bible in the biblical debate than not.

I'll revote with the correction.

Now might be the perfect time to sell those coffee cups.

Do you get joy when others cry?

Maybe watch movies that encourage healthy masculinity instead of the shit that shaped your psyche.

What’s the matter, RM?
Gonna cry?

😂😂😂😂

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

I am talking to Barney, you are the petty attention seeker inserting yourself. If you want to insert yourself, do not blame me for it.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

I do, I can teach you.

Just breathe, RM.
It will be okay.

-->
@Barney

That is nowhere near sufficient justification of sources vote, you even mention you would tactically rescind it if you gave him arguments to make it avoid being called a votebomb, right?

Oh no...
Here we go again. -.-

-->
@Barney

I didn't have a meltdown and lancelot is gaslighting me and harassing me.

-->
@Barney

Sorry about my opponent’s meltdown.
At least he can’t report your vote.

-->
@RationalMadman

Via greater impacts, his bolstered his case better. That he ultimately lost arguments, doesn't diminish his superior use of sourcing to support his case.

Were I voting in his favor on arguments, sources would be left in the tied range.

-->
@Barney

You are meant to vote on who used more reliable sources to bolster their case. You are not meant to vote for whose made you cry more.

Regarding Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, I will give credit to 300 and Troy for machoism, but there's a host of other great metrics the hero in Robin Hood has.

Just watch this clip where he defends his wife from a would be rapist who sneaks in the window, and he makes a stand against nepotism and white supremacy. At the same time, he's so compassionate, trying to help the criminal find his missing father. During the fight he even pauses for a moment to romantically reassure his bride with a kiss, assuring the audience it's not about the fight, but the milk he's fighting for!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg-UpYglAEw

As for his thing against pre-marital sex: I'm no puritan, but it's hard to deny there being something positive about a man sticking to his good Christian values (almost any value set would do; it speaks so much to integrity)... Oh, and he's a humanitarian, in another scene he takes a stand against poverty, by bashing in the slums. Most mayors today have failed to live up to his example of cleaning up parks for everyone's enjoyment; rather than having them be tent cities for the homeless. I know he didn't completely solve that problem, but he greatly decreased the number of homeless people /living/ in that park.

-->
@Barney

Thanks for the vote!

---RFD (intro)---
Pretty much breaking this down by the rounds for these two fighters...

R1 & R2
I’m enjoying the strategies of each debater, one arguing for what a man should be, and the other arguing what a man must not be to embody those same traits.

Pro comes out in the lead for two reasons:
1. The begging scene in which for the good of his family he degraded himself (I suppose that would fall under bravery, while it really should fall under true honor; not to be confused with "honor").
2. "the outcome is more a feeling of relief and satisfaction than appreciation." Hard to deny this about Click.

R3
"too typical and mimicking others, it doesn't quite cut as uniquely good or the 'best' specifically because near replicas exist."
This is a fantastic point from con. Going in I expected two movies of the same formula (possible both starring Russel Crowe) to butt heads, but there is value in uniqueness.

"toxic masculinity"
This would be a good time to emulate pro's own tactics with a clip. Got to say, con's case would have been helped with with the death follow up scene's brilliant use of U2's song Ultra Violent (Light My Way). A hopeful note that change is possible if you act in the now. Also highlight clips of Russel Crowe being a misogynist, would have had great impact. I liked the follow up later of "the proof he is succeeding at becoming a better man are either specifically getting a woman to love and have sex with him as well as winning a fight" which reminds me of some lessons from The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck, and Models (both by Mark Manson... Define your value metrics internally with things you can control, not other people).

"beastly manly spirit"
Love this line.

"Rocky"
A comparative clip would have made this better, but it is what has been missing from the genetic claims.

Oh con goes deep into how memory works.

R4
Pro defends his movie for being based on a true story. This gives it a lot of credibility.
The link at the end of the round solidifies this.

"The main villain is the poverty and the circumstances the main character finds himself in."
That's actually the core conflict, not villain. But point taken, usually the core conflict would be is Rocky going to out punch the other guy.

"Jimmy willingly starves himself and gives his meal to his children"
Dude, that's powerful. Use a clip.

Con's comeback about toxic masculinity, is very well executed with the leadup from the previous round. As we in the audience just watched a fight scene (with clips of starving children for motivation). So we can't separate Russel Crowe from the violence. That said, the clip of Russel Crowe humiliating himself instantly comes to mind as not merely accepting help, but begging for it.

"completely fails to teach is how to lose and improve anyway"
Pro pre-refuted this.

"The entire movie is glorifying ignoring your wife's advice and feelings on matters"
Fair! ... It is assertiveness, but such might not be so ideal afterall.

R5
Alright, I don't know how this will go in the end! Which is damned rare for me (usually I know from reading the contender's R1).

Pro wisely uses bullet point reminders. The final one about Click was not a silver bullet, as it was a summary of con's fun argument to go the opposite way to the same desired goal (semantically different, but to me valid, and made this debate worth reading).

The defense of Toxic Masculinity would have been better had it cut out ten seconds faster, since I went from being teary eyed, to seeing him cut off his wife from talking. Ah, con catches that it's assertiveness as one of the metrics to define this debate (I'm still considering toxic masculinity a negative metric counter to the positive ones, but this example of it is shown to also be one of the desired traits... so more or less a wash).

Con comes back to lay out the core takeaways people are likely to have, and how it is likely to affect them going forward...

---RFD (conclusions)---
Arguments:
This is damned close! Were it not a shared BoP debate, con would easily win via casting sufficient doubt. As is, con casts doubt, but doesn't fully bolster his own movie within the pre-agreed metrics; yet he adds negative metrics that men should of course avoid; and pro's movie falls into them.

Pro's movie gets credit for being based on a true story, con's gets credit for being so damned unique. Yes, pro showed that Rocky is very different, yet it still painted the picture of intuitive similarities to other movies (A Beautiful Mind really should have been used as well). Click had nothing to be at all compared to it.

Con certainly could have strengthened his case with a little direct discussion of how virtues are vices when taken to the excess (as the toxic masculinity implied).

Pro really should have hit hard on the magic in Click, that the solution in it is unattainable unless you happen to meet Christopher Walken, or...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jInlO6-JTww
(FYI, my outside opinion that Click isn't really so unique, is not admissible evidence since it did not come up in the debate; even while it can still be commented upon).

This feels weird because I am in the end I believe pro is ultimately right, and yet the skill with which con argued his case makes me favor his arguments by a small margin. Pro is right that Cinderella Man has a better role model, and yet con's country that Click is a better movie to serve as teacher for those desired traits doesn't seem to be adequately challenged; it was something of a dark mirror to pro's case.

A little more offense against Click, or better defense against the negative traits in Cinderella man, could have tipped this the other way.

While I don't think it controlled my assignment, I will admit to a slight bias in favor of Click (seen it, know the context of every scene; had I known that for Cinderella Man, maybe the hurt wife would not damage it as much via being familiar with scenes of him treating her well).

Conduct:
Conduct for RM's routine forfeiture.

Sources:
This almost inevitably goes to pro. I was left in tears from the well timed use of clips from his movie, making me think that Russel Crowe is the better man to want to be (as opposed to just not being like Adam Sandler; even if such probably has more impact on the zeitgeist). Cons did ok, and his use of out of movie sources was smart, but they ended up being poorly executed wanting the reader to make their own interpretations of large chunks of data, rather than summarizing it in his words and giving links (his R4 was more quotations than his own words).

300 and Troy.

-->
@Barney

Idk, I think the movie 300 takes the cake on that one.

-->
@Barney

Premarital sex is stupid to be against, I get being against hookups but being against lovers doing it is ridiculous.

Two things:
1. Kritik: Role "models" plural! 😁
2. Robin Hood Prince of Thieves is better than either of these two. Defending the country from a tyrant, being scarred and humiliated, even losing family members, and just consider the obvious love scene in which the hero takes a stand against premarital sex "I will not take her, until we are properly wed!" And in the end, he dies trying to save his kingdom...

-->
@Barney

Thank you sir!
Hope it’s entertaining enough.

Read the first two rounds.

I loved Click, and have not seen the other one.

I’m enjoying the strategies of each debater, one raging for what a man should be, and the other arguing what a man must not be to embody those same traits.

I’ll finish this later.

-->
@Greyparrot
@Sidewalker

Sidewalker-
All good, no worries.

Greyparrot-
True.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

Looks like I don't have voting priviledges anymore, sorry.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

You should be very careful about making debate resolutions with words like"best" in them. It is very easy for opposition to win the argument by providing a single contradicting example.

-->
@Greyparrot
@oromagi
@Best.Korea
@Sidewalker

Sorry for the ping, I realize this subject isn't that interesting.
Some people have lost their voting privileges, so it would be greatly appreciated if you guys could vote on this.

-->
@RationalMadman

It really is. It only says those who engage in debates can vote, but this is ridiculous because thousands of forum posts and a true engagement in the community show being a member of a community and the ability to engage in discussion. Those people can be trusted to vote.

-->
@AleutianTexan

Piece of shit update, I am so fucking tilted about it.