I affirm the resolution “Reality tv stars should be considered celebrities.” In this case, reality tv stars refers to a person who achieves fame primarily through their appearances on unscripted, non-fiction television programming, such as competition, dating, or lifestyle shows. A celebrity is defined simply as someone who is widely recognized, particularly in fields like entertainment or sports. Given this, the argument is quite straightforward. The only requirement for becoming a celebrity is to be recognized widely. The resolution is proven true simply by the existence of people who became famous and widely recognized for their time on reality tv, of which there are a plethora. 1) Any winner of American Idol cleanly affirms the resolution, as their performance and success on the show creates widespread recognition among both watchers and non-watchers of the show. 2) Many LOSERS of American Idol also cleanly affirm the resolution, including Chris Daughtry who placed 4th on his season but had become so famous from his show that he was able to launch a successful music career regardless. 3) A litany of other reality shows have made household names, including the cast of Jersey Shore, Survivor, and any of the Got Talent shows. The resolution does not require the celebrities provide value to their audience or society, nor does it require me in the affirmative to prove that these people being celebrities is a positive thing. Upon proving that there are people who became famous and widely recognized because of their time on reality TV, the resolution is validated and you must affirm.

This is completely non-responsive to my actual argument. The negative is taking the position “calling these people celebrities is bad for this other type of celebrities.” What’s notable is the negative is inherently conceding the idea that even they do think of these people as celebrities right now. They know who they are, they referred to one by name knowing that I and all of the judges would know who it was, i.e. the person was widely recognized. Go back to the definitions at the top of the affirmative and this was the only requirement I had to prove in order for you to affirm, so judges can feel very comfortable affirming because the negative told you to in their opening. But circling back to my actual argument, the negative’s main gripe is that reality tv stars get famous cheaply and it ruins it for people with actual talent. Turn this argument against them, look back at the affirmative and I give you examples of people like Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, and Chris Daughtry who are all immensely talented and only got their recognition and their jump start to fame and becoming a household name BECAUSE OF reality TV. So you can turn the only meaningful argument the negative made against them because reality TV does enable incredibly talented people who grinned for years to get the recognition they deserve. It may not be all of them, but the resolution only requires me to prove one example for you to affirm. Thus, you must affirm.

Chris Daughtry’s fame originated with moments on reality TV. Same for Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood. The problem with the negative case is it assumes that all reality tv stars got their fame for cheap, which is not true, as evidenced by all of the examples I gave. The affirmative is the only side that provided clear definitions for what makes a reality tv star and what defines a celebrity, the negative has offered no meaningful alternative and is now whining and trying to change the wording of the resolution mid-debate now that they see how far behind they are. The negative also presents a new and weaker version of their argument, that being filmed living their life is not sufficient work to be declared a celebrity, and wants to apply this standard uniquely to reality tv stars, but makes no consideration to the entailment that this standard rules out so many people who do this for a living on media other than television and are, by any honest interpretation, celebrities including YouTubers like Jake Paul or twitch streamers like TimTheTatMan. The negative offers no coherent standard, no coherent alternative, and the only meaningful argument they’ve offered in the whole debate was turned and actually is a reason to vote for the affirmative. Thus, you must affirm.

Being famous from one video does not necessarily mean one would be “widely recognized” thereafter, so your first point is just not responsive at all to the actual argument. Whether or not Daughtry or Clarkson stayed reality tv stars is irrelevant, because at one point before their record deals and albums and rest of their careers, they were reality tv stars who were household names, i.e. celebrities. Affirmative framework, which has gone unresponded to for this whole debate, establishes that if I can even show a single example of reality tv stars who clear this hurdle, judges must affirm. I have, repeatedly, and no amount of last minute framework debate from the negative can change that.

1) you keep mischaracterizing the definition - my definition is not so wide that it includes any viral moment, because “that one guy from that one video” is not likely to be “widely recognized” if shown a picture later or seen walking down the street. So first, you are wrong, and secondly, this isn’t responsive anyway. 2) you haven’t actually defined any of the terms in the resolution, you’ve only criticized mine. But insofar as you offer no alternative, I extend the affirmative definitions. 3) I also cleanly extend the framework which has gone unresponded to. A single reality tv show that made someone widely recognized means judges must affirm. Looking back at the examples, it is completely irrelevant if Daughtry or Clarkson stayed famous for their careers after they were already made famous for their time on reality tv. For the purposes of this debate, reality TV made them famous, and they absolutely deserved it for the talent they showcased on American Idol. In that moment on the final stage, they were reality tv stars and they had also become celebrities. Anything that happened after that is completely irrelevant and extra topical to the debate under the affirmative framework which has gone cleanly extended and completely unresponded to for the whole debate, so I have clearly met the standard set at the beginning of the round, and judges have absolutely no choice but to affirm the resolution.