The Instigator
TorqueDork
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
JacobAnderson
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke should be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
JacobAnderson
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2013 Category: Music
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 827 times Debate No: 42709
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

TorqueDork

Con

First Round- Acceptance
Fourth Round- No new arguments

Those are the only rules. I choose the side that the song shouldn't be banned. I will provide some definitions now

Banned- Restricted from being played publicly
Blurred Line- The Robin Thicke Song
JacobAnderson

Pro

I accept your debate and will argue that Blurred Lines should be banned from being played publicly, whether it be on the radio, on tv or at public functions.
Debate Round No. 1
TorqueDork

Con

Argument one- Banning it is unconstitutional[1]
The first amendment of the constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"[1] This you can not pass a law that prohibits the playing of a song, because songs are protected under freedom of speech.[2]

Argument two- It doesn't encourage rape, like opposers of the song claim
Any emotionally disturbed enough to rape somone, based on song lyrics, has far more serious problems.

[1]http://www.law.cornell.edu...;
[2] http://www.pbs.org...
JacobAnderson

Pro

Before I refute or make my arguments, I would like to point out that you said it SHOULD be banned. This is a matter of opinion, and although it may be supported by the 1st Amendment, that does not mean that it SHOULD NOT be banned, that just means that it CANNOT be banned.

In fact, in that sentence I refuted your first argument, and in my argument I will also be refuting your second argument.

Now, the title suggests, at least to me, that there is a confusion of boundaries. These "Blurred Lines" are the boundaries that people are often expected to respect, but when someone is intoxicated, their "lines" are "blurred." (All lyrics come from Source 1)

"OK now he was close, tried to domesticate you But you're an animal, baby, it's in your nature"
It is clear that he is talking about a woman in this line, and it is common knowledge that "[domesticating]" a woman is to "wife her up" as some would say. "But you're an animal" suggests that the woman is wild and can therefore not be "domesticated."

"I know you want it."
This is pretty self-explanatory in the context of the song. "It" either referring to himself or sexual actions he can perform.

"The way you grab me. Must wanna get nasty."..."I hate these blurred lines."
There is nothing about these lines that is in any way innocent or pure. Because his lines are "blurred," his perception is blurred, and because of this, he takes "The way [they] grab me. Must wanna get nasty." This is a disgusting message that should not be broadcasted throughout the nation or any other nation that values human dignity.

"You the hottest b-tch in this place."
Calling a woman a derogatory term like "b-tch" should not be a message that should be spread anywhere.

Finally, to save time and effort, "One thing I ask of you. Let me be the one you back that a-- to."
No explanation needed.

Though you can argue that it would be unconstitutional or that the song is not about rape, the song should be banned. Just because it should be banned, does that mean that it can be banned? No. I think maybe you should have said "Blurred Lines should AND CAN be banned." But, you said it SHOULD be banned, and yes, it should be banned.

Source:
1. http://www.azlyrics.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
TorqueDork

Con

"Before I refute or make my arguments, I would like to point out that you said it SHOULD be banned."
Yes, and I made my position con. I did this to avoid a positive supporting a negative, I thought it might be confusing.

"This is a matter of opinion, and although it may be supported by the 1st Amendment, that does not mean that it SHOULD NOT be banned, that just means that it CANNOT be banned."
The constituition was the basis of our nation, and if we banned this song we could also refute other amendments, which is why it shouldn't be banned. It also couldn't, but that's another point enitrely.

You go on to explain how the song is sexist and therefore wrong
Just because you think it is sexist, and have evidence that you beilive supports that, doesn't mean that it should be banned. As Americans we have rights to play and listen to the music we choose to, and we shouldn't deny those rights regardless of the song.

"There is nothing about these lines that is in any way innocent or pure."
Nore is the song attempting to be pure.

"This is a disgusting message that should not be broadcasted throughout the nation or any other nation that values human dignity."
You never state why.

"Calling a woman a derogatory term like "b-tch" should not be a message that should be spread anywhere."
That's subjective.

""One thing I ask of you. Let me be the one you back that a-- to."No explanation needed."
I beg to differ, explain to me why this should lead to the song being banned.

"Though you can argue that it would be unconstitutional or that the song is not about rape, the song should be banned."
Why, because the lyrics are disagreeably?

Keep in mind, I am not arguing it couldn't be, nor was I attempting to.

Argument 1- Freedom of speech (Again)
Freedom of speech is "the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them."[1] This should protect the song, as it is one of our nations ideals

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
JacobAnderson

Pro

"The Constitution was the basis of our nation, and if we banned this song we could also refute other amendments, which is why it shouldn't be banned. It also couldn't, but that's another point entirely."
First, I would like to ask which other amendments it would violate because in my AP Government class we have studied many amendments and I do not see one that banning a song would refute. Also, you are saying that we shouldn't ban it because it is unconstitutional, which is not the case. You agreed that should and could are two different things, but it seems that it is mixed sometimes in your arguments. Regardless, we cannot say something shouldn't be banned because it is unconstitutional because should or should not is an opinion whereas could and could not are fact. There are people that do not agree with some parts of the Constitution and that is why amendments are added to either add or repeal rights. So to say that we can't do it constitutionally, so therefore we shouldn't do it, is illogical.

You argue that we have the right to listen to the song and just because it's disgusting doesn't make it wrong.
Okay, again. You are talking about can and cannot not should and should not. You are talking about the legality of these actions as opposed to personal opinions. If you wanted to debate the legality, you should not have used the word should in your resolution.

No personal attack, but some of your grammar mistakes lead me to believe that you sometimes do mix "should" and "could." This whole debate is subjective, so to call my argument subjective is irrelevant and repetitive. Also, all lyrics are sexual, you cannot deny it unless you have "blurred lines."

Now, like I said, the song should be banned, although it cannot be banned constitutionally.

And yes, the song should be banned because the lyrics are suggestive, the video is suggestive and the VMA performance of this song is subjective.
Debate Round No. 3
TorqueDork

Con

Should- used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
Could- past tense of can
Can- Be able to

I am using should to convey that as citizens it is our duty to obey the constitution. It is our obligation. Sorry that I didn't post the definition earlier but I thought the definition of the word should was clear. Also, next round is the last round so you can't post any new arguments, only rebuttals.

"First, I would like to ask which other amendments it would violate because in my AP Government class we have studied many amendments and I do not see one that banning a song would refute."
To my knowledge the first amendment is the only one that it would violate, but the notion that one is not enough is ridiculus.

"Also, you are saying that we shouldn't ban it because it is unconstitutional, which is not the case."
It is completly unconstitutional. Defintition of unconstitutional is "not in accordance with a political constitution, esp. the US Constitution, or with procedural rules." and it is not in accordance with the constitution."

"There are people that do not agree with some parts of the Constitution and that is why amendments are added to either add or repeal rights."
Yes, but this is the current law and has never been repealed. Of course people disagree! Some people disagree on every matter.

"So to say that we can't do it constitutionally, so therefore we shouldn't do it, is illogical."
No it isn't because this is the current ammendment of the constitution, and so long as it remains that all laws must fit in accordance to the constitution. This isn't a debate about weather or not the First Ammendment should be repealed.

"You are talking about can and cannot not should and should not."
No, as prooved by my prior definitions I was tallking about should not

"You are talking about the legality of these actions as opposed to personal opinions."
My personal opinion is that the legality of these arguments is reletive.

My wording was completley intentional.


JacobAnderson

Pro

The definition of the word should is clear to me, but apparently not to you. When you use the word should, you neglect all legality of an issue and focus on the morality of an issue. Your argument is based on legality rather that morality which is why this has turned into a debate on should vs could/can.

There is no next round, this is the last round, so yes I know to rebut and conclude.

Earlier my opponent stated, "... and if we banned this song we could also refute other amendments." But when asked which other amendments, my opponent replied, "To my knowledge the first amendment is the only one that it would violate." This is grounds enough to negate all arguments on other amendments.

My opponent's only argument has been that banning a song is "unconstitutional." Yes, banning the song would not be in accordance to the first amendment, but I would like to show that the original intentions was not to protect a song, but rather to protect our freedom of speech against the government. Nowadays, there is no denying that this action would be "unconstitutional," but that does NOT mean that the song SHOULDN'T be banned.

My opponent continues to debate the legality of the topic instead of the morality of the topic and therefore is not following under their own resolution.

Though they state the legality is "reletive" as they "prooved," it is not the basis of this debate. My opponent is debating that we should, morally, follow the Constitution and has neglected to prove that Blurred Lines should NOT be banned.

That is all.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by PeriodicPatriot 3 years ago
PeriodicPatriot
@Con

False. Also, your sources for these claims are not valid, since they cite Wikipedia which can be edited by anyone (including myself!).
Posted by JacobAnderson 3 years ago
JacobAnderson
Thank you abyssal. I am glad to hear that I was not the only one who saw that.
Posted by abyssal7130 3 years ago
abyssal7130
Sorry, I mixed up 'Pro' and 'Con' in my Reasons for Voting Decison. Here is the correct version:

Con failed to establish why the song should not be banned, only that it could not be banned. Con also had some useless arguments like 'banning the song would go against first amendment which could lead to violating other amendments', which is not only not supported by evidence but Con also backtracked on it in a later round. Con had some spelling errors, like 'prooved' and 'ridiculus'.
Posted by JacobAnderson 3 years ago
JacobAnderson
Messaged* Struggles of typing whilst dying
Posted by JacobAnderson 3 years ago
JacobAnderson
Literally dtaylor literally. I can tell con mmessagd you to vote for him especially ssince you believe his spelling and grammar are superior. I'm dying laughing.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
TorqueDorkJacobAndersonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: TorqueDork, con, used more reliable sources here, as he did not use a single .com, as pro did. The arguments were tied and I think that con had a bit better spelling and grammar, as Jacob made a few spelling mistakes here and there.
Vote Placed by abyssal7130 3 years ago
abyssal7130
TorqueDorkJacobAndersonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had equally good conduct, both sides' sources were minimal, no points there. Con failed to establish why the song should not be banned, only that it could not be banned. Pro also had some useless arguments like 'banning the song would go against first amendment which could lead to violating other amendments', which is not only not supported by evidence but Pro also backtracked on it in a later round. Pro had some spelling errors, like 'prooved' and 'ridiculus'.