The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Businesses should boycott that bawling brat Bieber because of his bad behaviour

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 679 times Debate No: 44894
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




What do the following popstars have in comon?

a) Elton John (the openly gay singer of Goodbye Yellow Brick Road fame who used teenage strippers dressed up as boy scouts as backing dancers in a live performance and who repeatedly tried, but wasn't allowed, to adopt young boys).

b) George Michael (the former closet gay singer out of Wham! who was prosecuted for engaging in a lewd act the public restroom in California and who was jailed for drug offences).

c) Boy George (the formerly sexually-ambivalent singer out of Culture Club who was arrested on a drug charge and who was jailed for assault and false imprisonment of a rentboy).

d) Marc Almond (the openly gay singer out of Soft Cell who is rumoured to have been rushed to hospital to have his stomach pumped after drinking a pint of semen).

e) Justin Bieber.

That's right, as citizens of the British Commonwealth they all share the same head of state: Queen Elizabeth II.

Also, some of them have been in trouble with the law. For example, Justin Bieber is no stranger top the police.

In November last year he was charged by Brazil police with illegally spraying graffiti in Rio de Janeiro.

On the 15th January this year the LA police investigated claims he threw eggs at neighbour's house.

On the 23rd of the same month 23 he was charged with driving under influence of alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs, resisting arrest, speeding and driving with an expired licence.

And today, just a week later, he was charged with assaulting a limousine driver in Toronto. [1]

I understand, given the talentless tattooed teenager's sizeable fan base amongst giggling little girls and homosexual men, businesses would be keen to associate themselves with Bieber through advertising and sponsorship deals but I believe they have asocial responsibility not to endorse him, and by extension, his bad behaviour by giving him cash in exchange for product promotions.

Thank you.



Here's a sick joke for you. Justin Bieber, the coiffed Canadian teenage singer whose head seems to have been turned by adulation, visits Anne Frank's house in Amsterdam. In the guestbook, he writes "truly inspiring to be able to come here". Wait for it, wait for it: he then comments that the Holocaust victim and literary prodigy was a "great girl" who "hopefully would have been a belieber" (one of his die-hard fans).
Laughing? Me neither.
It wouldn't have been so awful if it hadn't actually happened. So far, Bieber's hapless European tour has involved the star a) lashing out at photographers, b) infuriating his teenage fans by turning up two hours late to gigs, c) cancelling gigs at short notice in Portugal, and d) having his pet monkey confiscated by the authorities in Germany. Now he has topped it off by combining offensiveness and absurdity in a single off-the-cuff remark. That takes talent.
It's sad in a way. I don't know if Bieber was a decent chap before fame swept him off to la-la land, but he has since become widely recognised as one of the most cretinous and ego-maniacal figures of our times.
The debate is just gearing up, but the two basic positions are predictable. One group will criticise Mr Bieber for his hare-brained comments. The other will defend him on the grounds that he is young and living under the pressure of fame.
Where we stand in this argument is of a greater significance than it appears. The way I see it is this. Let the singer off the hook, and we are doing him a disservice, suggesting that because he is young, he is therefore incapable of behaving responsibly. We will be limiting his horizons, and showing that we have little faith in both him and human nature. Call him to account, however, and we are demonstrating firstly that we expect better from him, and secondly " and more importantly " that we believe that he is capable of better. In my view, if he has any chance at all of surviving this maelstrom of paparazzi and pheromones, Mr Bieber needs beliebers like this. Lots of.
(By "we" I am not imagining that the attitude of wider society actually makes a difference to young Justin. No: it makes a difference to society itself.)
As with Justin Bieber, so with other youngsters. Last week, I wrote in these pages about Paris Brown, the 17-year-old former Youth Police and Crime Commissioner who came a cropper when her offensive tweets were revealed. I made the fairly obvious point, which is that it was a ridiculous idea to appoint a teenage girl as an adviser to a country police force in the first place. On Twitter, people complained that I had been disparaging young people. So when interviewed on BBC radio about it, I made a point of emphasising that not all youngsters are in the habit of making homophobic, violent or racist comments on Twitter or elsewhere. Paris Brown's teenage years, I said, seem to be serving her particularly badly. When this aired, I received even more accusations of disparaging the young. Sigh.
The fact is that you can't have it both ways. Either young people are inherently prone to mess up, in which case you don't thrust them into the public eye. Or they are mature enough to handle such a level of responsibility, in which case you can't let them off when they mess up.
A teenager is not a toddler " though it may often seem like it " and the more we kowtow to them, allowing them to be abusive, racist or otherwise offensive with impunity, the weaker our society becomes. The toleration of appalling teenagers can be found everywhere, from the state schools that teach their pupils to aim for jobs in Tesco, to the bus passengers who turn a blind eye when youngsters play loud music on their mobiles. This hyper-respect for the young, which allows them to ride rough-shod over everybody else, is mirrored by a shameful denigration of the aged " a state of affairs which Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, referred to as being "frenetically oriented towards youth".
Over the last 60 years, the pervasive view of teenagehood has profoundly changed. Whereas in previous generations they were expected to fly Spitfires, become nurses or support families, these days they are expected to do little more than get apoplectically drunk, have abortions and do Media Studies. We need to believe in Paris Brown and other teenagers " yes, even Justin Bieber. And that means that we shout when they are selling themselves short, and when their behaviour is letting them down.

so i m really sorry for your defeat mr pro ..
i hope you cant oppose me now ...
Debate Round No. 1


brian_eggleston forfeited this round.


i am sure that brian is not able to defend his case...
i win...
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
I'm confused. You both did great... But who was arguing what?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Brian forfeited, but had a source and made me hate the singer even more.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't get it. Pro argued that Beiber should be punished by boycotting for his bad acts. Con then agreed that Beiber should be punished for his bad acts, without saying exactly how. The resolution is therefore affirmed by both debaters. Pro forfeited, losing conduct, but no further arguments were advanced. The mystery is why Con seems to think he was disagreeing with Pro.