All politics propaganda should be banned
Debate Rounds (3)
Firstly, it's on Pro to define exactly what he's arguing in "politics propaganda", which he has failed to do in one round.
Additionally the BoP is on him/her to show that "television should be banned" because it "affects how people live". Not only that, but Pro also has to provide evidence that it "leads to patriotism" and to "people dying for no reason".
The following problems with these three assertions are:
C1.] The television is primarily a tool for entertainment, and it covers an incredibly wide spectrum of difference topics--not only news coverage. People watch television for dramatic and/or comedic purposes, to inform themselves with documentaries and a whole host of other reasons. Pro essentially argues that the television is used for one thing [promoting politics propaganda] but this is absolutely not the case.
More to the point, there are many other alternative ways that bias and propaganda can be projected. For example, one could argue that there is propaganda on the Internet--to a greater extent than the television, one could also make a case for propaganda appearing in music, literature, and art, as well as other creative outlets.
Once again, television programming is extraordinarily varied. Do nature documentaries also promote political propaganda? Or how about period dramas? Obviously the answer[s] is no to both. There is in fact no valid reason for banning television, especially on the basis of political propaganda that does not even exist in the vast majority of television shows. Even the news is required to provide largely non-biased coverage. And without it, a lot of people would not be informed of the events in the world; specifically those of the older generation.
C2.] Pro is also to show how the television affects the way people conduct their lives. People generally base their lives on what they have in it, not what appears on television. For example, watching a cookery program will have very little influence on what the viewer does or doesn't do in their life or what their political views are. Again, the purpose is primarily to provide entertainment.
C3.] Perhaps the most outlandish claim of Pros is that the television [as dynamic as it is] leads to patriotism--especially as most of the programs you see are once more, purely for entertainment. Television from around the world is also shown in the majority of countries, for example, in the U.K you'll most likely see programs from the U.S, and vice-versa. Australian programs also receive airtime in the U.K, and people from Europe additionally get to see British T.V shows if they want. There is virtually no evidence to show that any kind of television leads to or causes patriotism.
C4.] Another assertion of Pros is that people can die for no reason as a result of watching television, this claim in itself doesn't require too much attention from me due to the sheer lack of evidence in support of it. The only thing that television can *possibly* lead to is people being either entertained or not entertained. Dying for no reason because of watching it, is simply out of the question.
C5.] Pro argues that "these reasons" are sufficient enough in supporting his resolution, but as I've clearly shown; they are not. For starters the reasons given are without any information or proof to show them as correct, and are merely just claims that are exclusive to Pros personal opinion[s].
Here's a source that supports my case :http://mediasmarts.ca...
The first reason why we should ban propaganda is because propaganda affects how people live on earth. Which country is bad and which country is good. For example because of the television propaganda in Russia, almost all of my Russian friends I have that watch television news believe that everything that U.S.A. Does is wrong. This leads to hate on U.S.A. for nothing! Watching a CNN video called "Russia Rolls out high tech new battle tank" says that Vladimir Putin put on display the most powerful forces to show a powerful message that would mean "we have power". Sure that maybe Putin did do that with the idea to show off BUT 9th May parade to Russians was always and will always be the most powerful and happiest event. Of course how important it is to Russians and the 11 million dead soldiers from the war it is not said. Then watching a Russian channel it said that soldiers that want to free Ukraine have attacked. 1 child and 3 grown-ups have died that support Russia. How much people died that day that were wanting to free Ukraine they did not say!
To support that propaganda leads to patriotism I have wrote this:
The next reason why we should ban propaganda is because it leads to war. As I said before people watch propaganda, which makes them want to do something like destroy America which leads to war. A lot of people think that there will be a war between Russia and U.S.A. To prevent this war we should ban the propaganda because the propaganda makes the people have a hate for nothing. Without the propaganda the hate will slowly die away and the people will not want to destroy each other.Talking about the Ukrainian situation. An interview on CNN of 2 Russian soldiers that were captured said that they were not supposed to be in Ukraine, which means that officially Russia has no direct interaction with the Ukrainian situation. Is this true? Another video called "is Russian president a father" says that Russia"s president Vladimir Putin dismisses all ideas about his relationship with Alina Kabaeva because he wants all the attention to be on Ukraine, with this attention they say other problems will get out of control. What problems they do not say. So maybe there is no problems? Maybe they want Americans to think that Russia has problems?
P.S. This is my first time on a debate. I failed.
It seems that instead of actually providing any actual "evidence", Pro is again referring to personal opinion in round two. Having some friends in Russia that *may* have a negative impression of the U.S again doesn't constitute as objective proof of anything, as does a CNN video highlighting that Russia has introduced a new "high tech" battle tank. Rather as a media outlet is is simply covering international news.
Additionally, I know full well that the 9th of May parade [and the entire day itself] is very significant to the Russian people--but this still doesn't show exactly how the media exclusively promotes political "propaganda". Obviously Russian media is going to place more emphasis on the 9th of May as it has considerably more historical importance to them than it does the U.S; which is hence why American media coverage of the event was likely more limited.
It's evident that Pro has a rather exaggerated view of the term "propaganda" and is therefore applying it to every media scenario where he/she thinks there's been biased coverage or not enough effort to include certain information.
Regarding Pros second point, once again there is literally no evidence or alternative sources displayed to support their assertion--and they are relying only their own individual views and how they interpret things. Whereas in round one I argued in detail about how expansive the television generally is and how televised news is an absolute requirement for many people, especially those who are older. Pro has essentially dropped my case and ignored the vast majority of my points.
Additionally, they haven't presented any explanation for how this "ban" on propaganda is to come about. There's also the very large question of what is to be considered "propaganda" and what is not. Two countries [I.E Russia and the U.S] simply reporting on each other doesn't exactly classify as propaganda at all and rather comes under the basic category of "news". Such a thing would heavily undermine "freedom of speech" as it would dictate to what media outlets can and cannot show. And I will point out again to Pro that what constitutes as propaganda could become extremely sketchy, and anything about another country--regardless of how the content, could be treated as biased information. An example here would be the Greek economy, any international outlet could be accused of promoting "propaganda" when covering it. Some people could see it as being too much in favour of Greece and its decisions, and others could obviously see it as vice-versa.
So "defining" what the boundaries are would be a huge task, and is a key thing that Pro has entirely left out from their argument.
To conclude my case for round two, Pro admits they have "failed" on the basis that this is their first debate--which is acknowledged. I will reiterate that as the Pro, they are required to present an objective argument and support their contentions with sources, which so far they have not done. It's their task to show how a ban on what is basically just news coverage is Going by what Pro has already argued, potentially anything about another country could be exploited and lableled as propaganda, thus making information become wholly limited.
I think that propaganda should be banned. I think that because propaganda leads to war, changes the way people live, and it leads to patriotism.
Pro uses the argument that "we should ban propaganda because it leads to patriotism" without including any evidence to suggest this--which thus leaves his case entirely unsupported and *not* verified. Pro seems to think that "all" propaganda leads to patriotism, however, one could easily argue that there is other propaganda that exists within every country that does *not* lead to propaganda that exclusively promotes that country only and does not cause people to "vigorously support" their country. As I've already argued in each round of this debate, the news is simply there to report what is going in the world and inform people of both national and international events.
Pro has ultimately failed to define what kind of propaganda he means and provide definitions for his argument--as well outlining *how* this ban would be enforced and what type of media reports would apply. Seemingly he focused on the U.S and Russia, therefore he perhaps should have given a a resolution relating to these countries only. As "propaganda" applies to an extremely broad spectrum [an example you can have both right-wing and left-with propaganda] and can also be relevant to any country; not just the ones that Pro is referring to. In fact, he's ignored pretty much every other nation in the world and argued solely on these two.
I will remind voters that Pro has failed to give one single (supported) example of why propaganda should be banned and what types of propaganda should be banned, as well as them specifying definitions in round one; which they absolutely should have done.
In round one I negated Pros resolution, and have fully responded to each of their points. Therefore, vote CON.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: I'm voting entirely on arguments. This is a pretty straightforward RFD, since Con rose some eloquent objections Pro could not counter. Pro says that political propaganda leads to negative views of other countries and leads to patriotism, especially love of *negative* countries. Con objects by saying that Pro's Russian friend saying propaganda against the U.S. is spread in Russia, or even a statement that propaganda such as that *is* spread in Russia, fails to objectively demonstrate anything. Additionally, Con says Pro fails to fulfill BOP since a negative impression of the US in Russia and patriotism is bad, and Pro gives us *no* evidence to think patriotism is replicated by the television and information. Ultimately, Pro fails on the links and impacts, since Russia being viewed as good due to propaganda has *no* impact whatsoever. A simple impact analysis dictates that Con has the sole impacts in freedom. Ergo, I vote Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.