Make your own free website on

Welcome fellow debaters!!

Sample Speech #3
Photo Album
Sample Motions
Reference sites
Debate Basics
it's all 'bout us
tag it

Enter subhead content here

A pleasant afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Today, I have chosen to speak about my beliefs on the topic of determining talent through votes. But before I discuss my points, let me first paint you a picture of the status quo. Today, we can see a lot of shows called talent searches in which aspiring artists audition in front of judges and later in front of a crowd. These judges are the permanent critics of the show but their observations are not the basis of winning. The audience (live and televiewers alike) determines the winners in these competitions. The best examples of these shows are Starstruck and Starcircle quest.

Given this, I think that it is time we reevaluate that votes cannot serve as a reliable basis for talent. My stand on the issue of determining talent through votes is that it is unjust to all contestants because of three main reasons (A) Popularity doesn’t show talent (B) The judges loose their purpose in the show & (C) People tend to appreciate mediocrity.

My first reason is popularity should not be equated to talent. This is because talent is considered as a mastery of an art or a craft while being popular simply put as being a very well known and noticeable. Being popular just shows how many people know you and notices you. And clearly the mastery of art is not the same as being well known. Yes, some people can be popular and talented at the same time, I can’t argue with that but I just want to set apart what it is to be talented and be popular. In this case, getting the most votes cannot interpret how good one sings, acts or dances; it only shows that you are appealing which is again entirely different from being talented.

My second reason is that judges loose their purpose in the competition. Like most competitions, these talent searches have judges. But as we might have noticed, the judges not only critics but also decides on who gets to bring home the glory of winning. The audience, in this case, just watches what happens in the competition and the judges’ decision is made final. Therefore, in making the audience decide who gets to win, we are making the judges comments and the judges themselves subordinate in the competition and therefore loose their real purpose in the show. That’s why they’re called judges, to make a choice between this and that with the “evidence” at hand.

My third reason is that voting talent promotes mediocrity in the industry (music and movie). Let’s take Starstruck as an example. They let their contestant audition for whatever their talent is: dancing, acting or singing. When they make the cut, they are to take more tests to prove that they can do it all. But it rarely occurs that artists are well rounded, meaning can do all three arts extensively. They make dancers sing, actors dance and singers act. They are disturbing the natural order of things, which are dancers dancing, singers singing and actresses acting. What if the dancing portion of the competition comes first before the singing test, then singers are very vulnerable at this point and could be eliminated which is not fair because that’s not their field. At the end of the competition, they end up with a “winner” who can dance, act and sing fairly.

Therefore, talent cannot be determined by votes. And I think what needs to be done is we (the audience) should give veto power mostly to the judges who are recognized experts in the industry but also considering the number of votes a competitor has.

Enter supporting content here