🎤 Shonda Rhimes vs. Aaron Sorkin  vs.  The Best TV Showrunner on :

Okay, let's get ready to debate!
Here we go:

**Round 1:**

**Shonda Rhimes:** Look, let's get right to the heart of the matter. The "best" TV showrunner is subjective, but for my money, it comes down to whose stories resonate deepest and furthest. I’ve built a career writing and overseeing shows that reflect a diverse America, shows where underrepresented characters aren’t tokens, but the drivers of their own narratives. I prioritize authentic emotion and complexity. That, more than fancy dialogue, is what builds lasting impact. My shows prove that.

**Aaron Sorkin:** Impact is vital, Shonda, but so is the quality of the writing. I aim to elevate television with smart, witty dialogue. A beautifully crafted conversation can change minds. Look at *The West Wing* -- inspiring generations to public service through heightened realism and idealistic pronouncements. Sure, emotions matter. But do your emotions solve crises like your characters frequently do, Shonda? Substance and a strong authorial voice also count, something many today often disregard to play to the audience. My works endure because they're impeccably written.
**Round 2:**

**Shonda Rhimes:** "Impeccably written" by whose standard, Aaron? Yours? My audience isn't concerned with flawless dialogue alone; they're moved by relatable struggles and seeing themselves on screen. Public service is wonderful, but relatability wins every time. It doesn't always require soaring rhetoric to affect change. You aim for "heightened realism," I reflect the true, unfiltered messiness of real life, with a few thrilling plot twists. Representation has to be more than just idealism that plays well to a certain section of the audience..

**Aaron Sorkin:** Relatable isn't synonymous with complex. Relatable can be dull. I concede representation matters. But must we always choose between art and relatability? My characters might face complex moral decisions that don't fall within a comfortable binary, even if they don't struggle the same way that a person in real life does, the emotional weight is still tangible. Are people’s everyday thoughts as elevated as you expect, or would you suggest they would prefer to see heightened language and situations in a world designed for the viewer's entertainment? I aim for engaging and stimulating entertainment, not just familiar echoes of average life.

**Round 3:**

**Shonda Rhimes:** Ah, now we arrive at the heart of it. You seem to misunderstand relatability for simplicity, and that is condescending at its worst and short sighted at its most charitable. My characters don't need fancy pronouncements or impossible resolutions, their emotional journeys need to feel earned. I deal with grief, betrayal, racism, and all these challenges with grace. Besides, let's be honest: do people talk as perfectly and cleverly as your characters do? Maybe people think to say something really impactful hours later, or the next day, which the writer might craft them saying instead..

**Aaron Sorkin:** Honesty in television should be considered through both the performance and content. You are right - not everyone crafts perfect conversations as quick and cleanly as is done by your character, or by a scriptwriter. If the viewer considers everything within their mind - plotlines, characters, dialogue and performances -- why shouldn’t an emotional weight be present? I aspire to showcase what could be achieved through ideal thought - not what someone is realistically thinking or doing during the worst moments of grief. It inspires discussion beyond what the average may endure, leading to wider impacts.

**Round 4:**

**Shonda Rhimes:** "Inspiring discussion," that sounds grand, but often, your "ideal thought" ends up feeling preachy. Discussion needs a basis in shared experience. A great deal of what motivates our discussions regarding complex issues arises from emotions. We do better when emotions can motivate solutions or discussions instead of someone standing around stating idealistic solutions. The power of "Grey's Anatomy," *Scandal*, or *Bridgerton*, stems from allowing audiences to see these issues portrayed in relatable characters within their messy environments

**Aaron Sorkin:** Preachy? I aim to make my arguments persuasive and compelling and am certain a considerable majority can empathize, even when a solution might not seem as easily attainable for them. But it sounds to me as though what I value isn’t worth any real praise! A “persuasive and compelling” moment will hopefully linger long enough to give them the right motivation needed! The "messy environments" you favor might entertain, but do they truly inform, do they show different values in their messiness? Give a reason for audiences to look for meaning! You’ll see your impacts soar!

**Round 5:**

**Shonda Rhimes:** Inform AND entertain, Aaron. My stories give real world events a fictional edge, that allows the viewer to have something to anchor the discussions to beyond "well this character thinks that way..." My audiences find "real world issues" reflected back to them and begin that engagement because of something shared between them. You can "persuade and compel" all day long, but your words land flatter if it’s being shot at us like we're targets, rather than if the conversations are had because your character said what "I wish I could".

**Aaron Sorkin:** Wishing versus doing – it seems your aim is wish fulfillment. My dialogue and plot points aim to encourage a thought-provoking experience rather than emotional comfort. Isn’t this much the way an impactful moment between family, partners, friends or those closest should be handled? Is a life “done” because someone never found themselves on stage and in the “role of their dreams”, even if they only feel capable of getting close with some personal guidance. Let your message ring out. “The best is for what your words make those watching!”
**Round 6:**

**Shonda Rhimes:** Thought-provoking experience that too often plays out only in the privileged corridors of power and you and you see success? With “doing’ being your emphasis, it all feels more a wish and not reality at all.” I want "doing” within every viewer, regardless of where their story has begun. Yes, I deliver some level of “wish fulfillment”, but through relatable struggles and flawed heroes. My goal is not always thought - I ask people to empathize in our world when they never got it or learned that concept, for reasons within my heart that I may find them not completely responsible, or have reasons, that, although they hurt others and/or self - are real within my stories.”

**Aaron Sorkin:** I do write of power dynamics! They permeate society. If all your people "do" as it seems now: relate through mutual imperfection… Then how are these ever meant to elevate our standards or ideas. Or make sense to some “hero’s” in their real and personal form? My goals for an entertaining person never aim to only elevate the viewer to reach my "characters’ potentials”, however if one comes close through self thought and evaluation from my words. Maybe that is why more people think this may change many minds when there comes some good change!"

**Round 7:**

**Shonda Rhimes:** My characters often ARE heroes within the world's perspective, even with the messy flaws. But that, even from one to others within the view of the screen in a mutual fashion is not always "mess", but that something we ALL face and therefore, we are united as a collective and equal human. Do all viewers then strive to achieve what it's hoped is to be the highest for us to learn and share amongst our society of others."
**Aaron Sorkin:** Your equal, “flaw” filled world can’t reach beyond the screens to become a shining reality with your mindset. But there are good, bad and also a gray between sides- because not all minds get elevated and feel as though change occurs between our words with all persons alike!”"You must provide them direction."
**Round 8:**

**Shonda Rhimes:** Direction isn't dictation. People need room to navigate their own moral compass. People reach out for someone similar because people learn or empathize at all because of something said, seen or maybe just their shared struggle, because their morals aren't only just coming from one source within reality of others from us. Maybe my empathy and connection helps audiences be and build our own direction into doing that next moral thought for self change by ourselves as said to our other.

**Aaron Sorkin:** Your passive acceptance that those directions won't change anyone doesn't allow for advancement in our world where thoughts might have changed one’s mind when facing reality that one person is always in and has become the thought to. So should these viewers all learn something moral and of their choice for new? My characters are always there within situations showing their all and morals, with the way this gets said through others so their future is decided now, not later…so does there have to be all the morals shown?"

**Round 9:**

**Shonda Rhimes:** Not all growth needs to be explosive leaps, and all new might hurt others around by change- not even all minds change even if a mind doesn't have new at hand. Is a thought all that is needed here at my stories - it isn’t an explosive leap if so. Some stories require a seed for thought alone from the first time. Perhaps an evolution of character change may never occur because now so. The new choice will show, and what will all morals mean now to viewers alike, if an act isn't all thought and just the thought alone?? I prefer it’s more complicated here now to feel the pain from the same as is me
**Aaron Sorkin:**Pain doesn't advance the social intellect always though- so some do feel their struggles never evolve- I hear of stories or times so - like others have. An advanced audience wants a path, or the show becomes background! Without moral advancements with one’s direction. Are your characters even reaching for these potential views?!
**Round 10:**

**Shonda Rhimes:**My advancements for them become not all, not always for morals and as with life. There is all beyond as our growth together will make, or even by myself. Our moral growths are still growing- so is society, and our new directions can occur without needing you.

**Aaron Sorkin:**New ways of advancement shouldn't become lost because our moral senses haven't changed… but just some. Society needs our path always! In society- even just as individuals with one's individual ways - because the more one’s morality grows: the future becomes evermore the more, when people reach beyond their world without some morality as your advancement states.”"You do know the future as for others and not only self now??."