I accept the challenge but pose the argument that films give much more than "values" and "morals". Rather it will be my contention that films, like any medium of art, have to function as a mirror to the society within which it has been produced.
If you read my post clearly, you'll see that I saw the question posed, however ill expressed, as being "Is entertainment value the only value motion pictures provide?" And I gave a clear answer to that question. Pro asserted that films provided moral value, not just entertainment value. In a sense, that is correct. All films to some degree expounds their own principles of moral values. But my contention is that films, like any medium of art, has even more to provide than either entertainment or morality, that they serve to "function as a mirror to the society within which it has been produced". And no. That is not the same as "movies also reflect the culture of those making the given motion picture". So our positions are not even close to identical.
But does that mean we are totally opposite? No, and it doesn't have to be that way. I've have debates taken place between people whose positions were never totally opposed, but were rather neighbors. Its fine and possible. Maybe we (me and you) should debate, considering my opponent here forfeited the first round.