MICHAEL JACKSON June 25, 2009 denotes the end of an era.

The world has lost a legend, an icon, a staple, and an innovator to the history of music as we now know it. With his influential lyrics, unsurpassed talent, and orbital dance moves that brings magic to the stage, Michael Jackson's throne to the kingdom of pop music now lays to rest. With much scrutiny from the media, Michael Jackson did not live such a different life from his predecessor Elvis Presley, or universally know as the King of Rock. Both legendary music icons were well known for their gyrating moves and social tactics that broke the barriers of normalism by many standards. Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson both had a 'presence' on stage and rhythmic movements that could motivate masses, and bring hysteria to any arena, breaking across universal borders and all boundaries. Both lives ended tragically young, however will always be remembered as royalty for their contributions to modern music. It would be a rare occasion to find any artist that has not in some way, shape, or form been inspired by Michael Jackson, the King of Pop. From Usher's moves, to Justin's vocal style, it is apparent that many modern artists have studied this legendary star and have mimicked his style into their passage of stardom. Michael Jackson has left his imprint on many fans, from many different genres. Both the King of Rock and the King of Pop have left us with their definitive culture and innovation, and will remain two of the most well respected musicians of all time. Their music will live forever with their hits like "Jailhouse Rock" and "Bad", and are undisputedly the most loved, cherished, and not to mention impersonated celebrities of all time. We embrace both Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley as artists, and are appreciative of their dedication to delivering the quantifying measure of success and ingenuity. We respect them as the original movers and shakers and ultimate enigmas of their craft Michael Jackson is the epitome of pop artistry. With the loss of Michael Jackson, we lose more than an artist. We have lost a genius and the iconic founder of pop music as we know it today. With shows like American Idol, bringing stardom to the average American based on looks and mediocre talent, and all of the pre packaged, sold out, and highly marketed artists, including the manufactured pop boy bands that have surfaced in recent years, we are unlikely to find another talent such as Michael Jackson anytime soon. Michael, we love you! ELVIS PRESLEY This debate shouldnt even be up for question. Anyone who actually reasons that Michael Jackson was a bigger influence on music than Elvis Presley has either been dead for the last 50 years or is just a complete loon. Michael Jackson never produced anything really original in his entire career. Sure he released music that was off the wall but it wasnt original. Elvis made music that had never been done or seen before. His music was based on the blues yes, blues singers like muddy waters and Bo Didley influenced him as he grew up, but all rock music is based on that. Whether there were more talented musicians and more gifted singers out there is undoubted, better musicians and singers did exist, the difference

here is that nobody had ever delivered music to the public in the way Elvis did, and nobody has done it quite as convincingly since. They either outright copy him or imitate his persona in some way or another. You can see a little bit of Elvis in every popular music performer. I am neither an Elvis Presley nor Michael Jackson fan, but even I can see there is just no comparison. Michael Jackson jumped on every pop music bandwagon and turned it to his advantage. Intelligent musical decision making maybe, but hardly musical genius or influential. Any type of music Michael Jackson ever performed had all been done before. I agree he was a man of unquestionable musical and showmanship talent, but it doesnt take much effort to go with the flow in the musical genres of the moment. First he would be singing Motown songs, a genre that had been in the public domain for years. When popularity for this died away he moved onto soul, which was already well established, then disco, then cheesy 80s pop. All of which were well established when he decided to put his mark on them, Even the idea behind the Thriller album was nothing new. The idea of epic songs, storybook music and even massive arena light and effects stage shows had all been around since the prog rock days. All that was done here was to bring this musical direction to pop, a money making stroke of genius it was, but hardly an original idea. And you could argue that Jackson was using the Elvis technique of performing to a certain extent, massive wham bam in your face performance, a technique basically invented by Elvis. Nobody is denying Jackson did what he did brilliantly and that he was very influential to his fans as people, but influential to the direction of music? No. There are millions of talented musicians out there so this doesnt make him a trailblazer. Elvis however, was new and fresh in everything he did until the mid seventies when he was obviously in decline physically and mentally. He was the first to bring many different aspects of popular music to public attention. His many films, although quite terrible in production were an extra dimension for his legions of fans to follow, also people who were not great fans of his music could enjoy these films in a tongue in cheek way. He even made gospel music popular to millions of people who had never even heard of it before. Arguably the biggest band in the world, The Beatles, although detested by Elvis were heavily influenced by him, many other beat bands who went on to mega rock stardom ranging from CCR, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin and hundreds of others, even the major rock and pop bands of today were all influenced by his music or the musical style he pioneered. You can here the Elvis undertone in all of this music. This I am afraid, is what makes Elvis the clear winner here. You can here him in every rock, bebop, Mersey beat, blues, new age rock or riff based song, and also every love ballard, a style music and singing of which he was also a pioneer. When I hear popular music today, I do not hear any influences or echoes of what Michael Jackson has done whatsoever, only things that were present all along. Only artists who are clearly plagiarizing his material make it seem this way. Michael Jackson was good for music there is no doubt, he threw a log on the fire to keep popular music burning, but we must not forget one very important thing, it was Elvis Presley who lit that fire in the first place.

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT FILM STARS, MUSIC STARS AND OTHER POPULAR ENTERTAINERS SHOULD NOT BE PARTICIPATING IN PARTY-POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS Throughout the world, celebrities from the entertainment world have been getting involved with political campaigns. Some, like Reagan and Schwarzenegger in the US, crossed the divide and stood for (and gained) positions of political power, whilst others have been involved in the endorsement of candidates. This debate is about that latter scenario: what happens when a political candidate is endorsed by celebrities, and should celebrities be allowed to lend their support in that way? (It is also important to note that, the debate below is not about prohibiting celebrities from conducting their own campaigns, e.g. Bonos Make Poverty History.) Government Personality politics is harmful to the democratic process POINT: Celebrity involvement in the political process may increase the extent to which politicians need to court media attention in order to promote their policies. Many people get their political information from soft-news outlets[1], i.e. entertainment channels and magazines that often focus on celebrity gossip. Shows such as Oprah Winfrey get millions of viewers many of whom dont get news through other mediums and although soft news is the preferred format for a minority (10.2%) for a great many more it is in their top three.[2] The involvement of celebrities in the political sphere increases the power of soft-news over the political process: due to the wide reach of soft-news it is not possible to counter its effects using narrow-reach opinion pieces and policy analysis. Rather, politicians are forced either to package their ideas in a way acceptable to these magazines and talk shows (i.e. reduce the analysis; dumb down), for example Obama in 2009 became the first sitting president to appear on a late night comedy show; Tonight Show with Jay Leno,[3] or to counter attack by seeking celebrity endorsement of their own. This makes political debate increasingly shallow, and voters decisions correspondingly less wellinformed. The harmful impacts upon our democratic process are two-fold: first, voters being less informed means they are less likely to truly be voting in a way that is aligned with their best interests or political beliefs; second, the debate is skewed towards ideas that can be conveyed in short sound-bites and away from ideas that require more complicated discussion. COUNTER POINT: The accusation of dumbing down is misguided: politicians will increasingly be able to reach a wider voter base if they are willing to repackage their ideas and policies, but this does not require dumbing down, simply a change in focus of the explanation. So not only is dumbing down not necessary, but politicians ideas are reaching more voters! For example, the war on women, has gained considerable attention in the media, and this has given a platform for female celebrities like Eva Longoria, to participate in events like the Democratic National Convention[1]. Eva Longoria and politicians who feel that women are being unfair attacked in regards to their body are now having these issues highlighted. Having celebrities involved in political campaigns like Eva Longoria does not mean the campaign was dumbed down it means that

it was accessible to a larger audience because they understood what she was talking about. Surely, that cannot be a bad thing. It should be remembered that those who consume this soft news will be much better informed and be consistent in voting than those who consume no news at all.[2] As a result they will be more likely to vote and soft news will give them some awareness of why they are voting even if a celebrity endorsement has some baring on that vote. This is an unjust use of unelected power POINT: Politicians want endorsements because they know it will bring votes; it is estimated that Oprahs endorsement of Obama in the Democratic Primary of 2008 brought an additional 1 million votes to Obama.[1] It is unjust for celebs to use their influence in this way. Celebrities have an ability to influence the political sphere that bears no necessary relationship with their knowledge of the subjects concerned, or qualifications otherwise to do so. Consequently, they represent an unelected, unaccountable pressure on the democratic system: they have been given power and influence, with no mechanism of checking that power, or way to prevent them from misleading the public (unlike, for example, political journalists, news channels and other sources of political information). This is principally unjust: the optimum democratic system is the one that holds the closest to the principle of one person, one vote, and attempts to ensure that those votes are as informed as possible. Celebrity involvement in politics is a hindrance to that, effectively handing the famous more votes than is their due. COUNTERPOINT: This injustice needs to be weighed against the effects of the policy. If you prohibit celebrities from participating in party-political campaigns, commit an injustice against the celebrities. You violate the right to self-expression of the celebrity. Everyone in a free society has the right to express their political views; indeed, this is something we hold to be a hallmark of such freedom. Celebrities should be no different, and should hold those same rights. Further, they cannot be said to have consented into such a loss of rights (given that not all chose the level of fame and power they find themselves with). Further, it is a bit melodramatic to suggest that people with influence effectively have more votes. By this metric, we would have to also prohibit the persuasive from participating in political campaigns. People have differences in their abilities to persuade others to follow their lead, and this is something that we simply have to take measures to ensure does not disproportionately impact upon any given party. People will have less information about politicians manifestos and ideas. POINT: Celebrity endorsement distracts those who normally provide information to voters. Newspapers, blogs and other online media all have limited space, and, because celebrities sell, will use that space showing who is supporting whom, rather than covering debate about a politicians policies and ideas.

Though the presence of celebrities may actually give the masses more avenue to relate to electoral processes, the fact still stands that in status quo people are more interested in the activities of their favorite celebrities which will thus blot out the candidates themselves. When voters see celebrity endorsements they are no longer thinking about how these future politicians can make an impact on their lives. In some cases the celebrity may help show the platform of policies the candidate is standing on but most of the time they are simply taking airtime from more in depth analysis. What is worse when wooing celebrities becomes important for politicians the politicians themselves have less time to formulate and articulate their policies. This is detrimental to the democratic process. People having less information than they would otherwise impairs their ability to make an informed choice about how they would like to vote. A prohibition on celebrity interference in political debate would remove this obscuring effect. All of the above adds to the depoliticisation of politics. If the celebrity endorsement continues to thrive, younger generations will disengage with the important political issues at hand. Instead of learning about the fundamental issues surrounding their country, they will be exposed to party tactics that are of no use to their political development. COUNTERPOINT: This is not necessarily the case: there remains a diverse assortment of news sources, and with the explosion in size and quality of the blogosphere, people are increasingly accessing information from a wide range of sources. Thus it is decreasingly the case that space in the news can be conceived of as limited in this way. Further, providers of political analysis might find it easier to sell papers/shows to a wider audience when they can use a celebrity image or quote as well, resulting in a more, not less, informed population. Opposition Celebrity involvement can act as a gateway to get more people engaged in politics POINT: Celebrity endorsement of a candidate does more than make people vote, drone-like, for the candidate endorsed by their favourite celebrity. Rather, it encourages people who might not otherwise have thought politics was interesting to pay attention to it. Especially in an age of easily accessible information, people can easily access sufficient information about political personalities and policies to cast a meaningful vote. As a consequence, you have more potential voters, from a wider cross-section of society, note the key role played by personalities like will.i.am in engaging young people during the Obama campaign. Rock the Vote with a large amount of celebrity support registered 2.6million voters in 2008 and it and other celebrity campaigns had been prominent in 2004 as well which was probably a key factor in 2million more 18-29 year olds voting in 2008 compared to 2004 or 6.5million over 2000.[1] Some of the people thus enthused may go on further with their interest in the political system, some may simply start listening to news shows or reading blogs that they would otherwise have shunned. Either way, celebrity involvement has a beneficial impact on our political system that it would be foolish to discard: the larger and more diverse the voter base, the more politicians are held to account and the more likely we are to reach the best political outcomes.

COUNTERPOINT: There is no particular reason why someone who is interested in a particular politician-endorsing celebrity would choose to do political research. Given, in particular, the segregation of news, where magazines and blogs tend to specialise (on, say, politics or celebrity life) it is hard to see why crossover would occur. The internet, whilst it makes information more accessible, accentuates this problem: where you can skip from news item to news item so easily, you are less likely to read an in-depth piece of political analysis by your favourite celebrity if you are not, in the first place, interested in politics. Further, it is worth considering a balance of harms here: on the one hand you have a smaller, but better informed voter base (those interested in politics without celebrities), and on the other hand a larger but less well-informed voter base (assuming not all the people who see a celebrity endorsement and go on to vote do any research first). That former scenario, without the uninformed voters, is the most likely to lead to the best political outcome. Celebrity involvement counters financial power to the benefit of the disenfranchised POINT: Parties advocating policies that benefit the most financially powerful (big business etc.) are able to make large revenues from donations from wealthy business personalities involved in those industries. Film and music stars tend towards the liberal or left wing of politics[1]. Consequently, in being prevented from exerting non-financial power (through endorsement) the different political parties are not equally affected: rather, you disproportionately punish the liberal parties. This is significant, given the necessity of a counter-balance to the power of big business (through donations for example in the USA 90% of donations from mining and the automotive industry goes to the republicans[2]) over our political system (which is not being similarly banned). COUNTERPOINT: If the celebrity involvement can be proven to be otherwise harmful or unjust then it is immaterial that it impacts one side more than another: if it really does advance the cause of some more than others, if we can prove this is an unfair and therefore illegitimate advantage, it should be stopped. Similarly, we place limits on the relationship between big businesses and politicians, with laws that attempt to prevent corruption and undue influence. Celebrity involvement can highlight minority interests POINT: There exists a problem with regards to advocacy for minority issues within mainstream political movements. This motion would exacerbate that problem. Voters tend to base their decisions on key issues (things like education, the state of the economy, healthcare policy etc.). Whilst they may care about more marginal issues (e.g. gay rights, religious freedoms, environmental issues), they are often unwilling to sacrifice something they think has a greater impact on them for something that has a lesser impact. Minority issues suffer particularly here: by their very nature, there are fewer people who feel directly affected than there are people who feel indirectly affected or indifferent. Consequently, there are never a great enough proportion of votes that could be gained by a political party

concentrating on these particular issues in a way which might be detrimental. See, for example, the public reaction in the UK to Camerons position on gay marriage: whilst most people feel that gay marriage should be allowed[1], Cameron has not received a political boost as a result of this decision, but rather, has faced hostility from those who believe it is a distraction[2], where they would rather he focused on issues like the economic crisis. COUNTERPOINT: This may well be a side-benefit of celebrity involvement in politics, however, the effect celebrities have on the promotion of minority interests is not decreased by their prohibition from party-politics. They can still engage in general advocacy and campaigning on specific issues important to them without endorsing parties or candidates. The policy-vote relationship that celebrities have with voters works in the opposite direction than for politicians: where politicians must choose the policies they believe will attract voters, celebrities first attract voters and then advocate for particular policies. This adds to the danger of celebrity participation; a celebrity may be endorsing a particular candidate because of that candidates support on that issue. Fans of the celebrity who may be influenced by the endorsement may have no interest or even be opposed to the issue for which the celebrity is endorsing the candidate. This would make celebrity endorsements as a result of minority issues positively counterproductive.