The Instigator
Mirza
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
InsertNameHere
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

Children should be allowed to watch TV during a school week

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 8 votes the winner is...
Mirza
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 34,357 times Debate No: 12019
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (8)

 

Mirza

Pro

I am standing as 'pro' on the debate topic. I believe that children should be allowed to watch TV during a school week.

---------------------------
Meaning of school week
---------------------------
"In most schools, the school week consists of days Monday through Thursday or Friday. However, in some countries (such as France) it goes from Monday to Saturday. There is no school on Sundays, and some afternoon classes may be cancelled or skipped. A few schools are cancelling Fridays, due to fuel costs. In Japan the school week is Monday to Friday (though the majority of students in Japan go to school on Saturdays and Sundays for test preparations, athletics, etc)."[1]

------------
Arguments
------------
A1: There is no need to prevent children from watching TV. While nowadays, inappropriate and violent content is almost found running on every TV, it can be limited with parental control.[2] With parental control, the parents of a child can limit the time a child spends on watching TV and allow only appropriate content to be shown. If several campaigns are run to encourage parents to do this, children will not experience violent content or other inappropriate content, such as sexually explicit.

A2: With proper control, watching TV does not prevent children from doing homework or being active. If a child's day in school lasts from 8 AM to 1 PM, then the child can spend one hour on sports hobbies, two hours with friends, one hour in reading, one hour in doing homework, two hours on watching TV, and until 10PM the child can be with his parents, and so forth. This balance on watching TV can easily be set by parents, and as I have demonstrated, it will not prevent a child from being active or doing his/her homework, nor will he/she be affected by inappropriate content. This can be achieved successfully through parental control.

A3: TV programs for children inspire them, entertain them, help them in understanding of reality, and increase their knowledge. When children grow, they look up to being what they like. When they watch funny animated cartoon films like 'Bugs Bunny'[3], their happiness increases, and the happier they are, the greater chances that they will grow up in a healthy way. Other films, such as computer generated shows, can be educative, which helps in increasing knowledge. A good example of such a show is 'Sid the Science Kid'[4]. This film introduces science to children and helps them gain interest in scientific and educational things, which leads to a positive start at school, and increases the chances of good educational results.

A4: A television itself is not harmful if used in moderate amounts. In older days, it was believed that a TV damaged the eyesight. It was, in fact, true. That was due to poor technology that let the TV release too much of harmful rays. However, modern technology has made such rays very limited, and they are not nearly as harmful as in older days. It is also known that staring too much at the TV is harmful, and that is true even today. Looking at something for a long time without blinking can lead to e.g. headache. However, it is also harmful to stare too much at a book or a teacher.

------------
Conclusion
------------
Spending too much time on something, or making use of something in a wrong way, is always negative. This is not limited to television only, therefore I do not believe that children should not be able to watch TV during a school week. However, I do believe that parents should set controls, and make it actually healthy for their children to watch TV.

I look forward to a response from my opponent. I hope that this will be a debate of high quality.

------------
References
------------
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.webopedia.com...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://www.pbs.org...
InsertNameHere

Con

First off, I'll like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. Like always, Devil's Advocacy should be fun. :) Good luck to both of us!

By school week we'll be assuming monday to friday for the sake of this debate. First off, my opponent makes a point about censorship. While many parents may be cautious about what their children watch on T.V this isn't always the case. Often times you'll see 10 year old watching shows such as "South Park" and "Family Guy" that are meant for an older audience. These shows address mature themes such as sex and drugs. People are often influenced by what they see in the media. Children are especially vulnerable. If they see something on T.V that seems "cool" such as smoking they'll be more inclined to try it. Another concern is body image. This can often be a problem among youth, teenage girls in particular. If they see a super skinny girl on T.V they may be inclined to eat less and eventually turn to anorexia. Children often come to believe T.V is an accurate representation of how society should be. http://education.stateuniversity.com...

Secondly, my opponent argues that time can be set aside for watching T.V. However, a few important factors are left out. One is scheduled show times. What if the shows the child wants to watch are not playing during the times set aside for T.V? Also, what if those shows are longer than the time slot set aside? Wouldn't it be better to not introduce these shows to children at all? They'll become accustomed to watching them and will want to continue as each new episode often ends in cliffhangers. This can be distracting from other things, just wanting to know how the show ends.

While my opponent mentions that certain shows can be educational so can books. Some companies, for example, publish educational books that can be fun and interactive for a child(http://www.kindbook.com...). These books can be often more entertaining than sitting in front of a screen, plus the children won't get getting influenced by corporate advertising and sucked into buying various things they probably don't need that'll help them save money as they get older. http://www.newdream.org...

Lastly, my opponent argues that T.V itself isn't harmful. However, watching too much of it can be. As mentioned earlier, due to cliffhangers and such to suck the audience into a show people can often get addicted to watching certain shows on T.V. This can lead to lack of exercise which in the long term can lead to obesity which 12% of Canadian children aged 2 to 17 suffer from(http://www.statcan.gc.ca...). It can also lead to further difficulties such as lack of socialization with other children.

I look forward to my opponents refutations. Now onto him...
Debate Round No. 1
Mirza

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate. The arguments she represented are quite interesting.

-----------
Rebuttals
-----------
R1: My opponent claims that it is not always the case that parents are cautious about what their children watch on television. I have no objection to this. However, I made no opposing claim myself. I did not argue saying that all parents are cautious about what their children watch on TV, but I argued by giving a solution to a problem, namely the one with regards to inappropriate content. Moving on, my opponent said that young children watch shows such as "South Park" or "Family Guy", which is not appropriate for them. Once again, I agree, but I have come with a solution to this.

R2: My opponent claims that particularly children are vulnerable to the media content, and I have already mentioned this myself. The argument my opponent makes after saying this is that "... If they [the children] see a super skinny girl on T.V they may be inclined to eat less and eventually turn to anorexia. Children often come to believe T.V is an accurate representation of how society should be." This is when harmful content comes to question. I agree that when young girls see a skinny girl on TV, they may want to be like her. However, on child-friendly programs, where one sees more of toys and other entertaining things, they do not see too much of 'super skinny' girls. With such girls possibly being shown, despite being on a child-friendly TV program, campaigns can be made in order to spread the message about the harmful effects of such content, and hopefully a decline of it will be seen through the years following the campaign. On the other side, I can also argue against the same content on something besides TV. I will do that in my other refutation point.

R3: My opponent tries to tackle my argument about a time appointment for watching TV by asking: "What if the shows the child wants to watch are not playing during the times set aside for T.V?" - This is a good question. However, the time schedule example for a day I made in argument number 2 puts 'watching TV' from the time range between 6PM and 8PM. If a child only watches TV at this time, then he will most likely always watch the same shows, unless they in rare cases move to other hours of the day. But this is a good lesson for the children: not everything you like lasts forever. Besides this, a TV is not necessarily used to TV programs. A DVD player can be connected to the TV, large sets of TV shows can be bought in DVD formats, and they can always be played for the child. This way, he/she will not miss any particular show. My opponent asked: "Also, what if those shows are longer than the time slot set aside?" - As I made it clear, choosing a specific time range for some particular shows will mostly likely prevent such a problem. If "Bugs Bunny" and "Sid the Science Kid", for example, run from 6:15 PM to 8 PM, then the child should simply watch TV at those times.

R4: My opponent says that books can also be educational. Yes, and I did not deny that. Moving on, she says. "These [link] books can be often more entertaining than sitting in front of a screen." - I agree, but I can say the same for TV against books. Moreover, my opponent seems to be unaware of the fact that there are books depicting 'super skinny' girls.[1] A good example is "Barbie". She is depicted as a beautiful and skinny young girl. However, it does not mean that we should ban all books, but let the parents choose wisely.

R5: My opponent makes a point about too much of TV being harmful. I have made this clear myself, saying that too much of anything is negative. Moving on, my opponent says that lack of exercise and socialization can be a problem. I agree, but following my example from A2, this will not be a problem.

My conclusion is the same as in the last round. I thank my opponent.

-------------
References
-------------
[1]http://www.ngatinggroup.com.hk...
InsertNameHere

Con

I thank my opponent for a brief and interesting debate. Now to move onto my closing arguments...

My opponent insists that parents monitor what their children are watching on T.V. Once again, I'll like to emphasize that this isn't always the case. It's a similar situation regarding violent video games and higher rated movies. Many young children play games such as Grand Theft Auto which could potentially give them the message that a gangster life is glamourous and make the child in question more aggressive. http://www.pamf.org... Why would it be any different with T.V shows and movies?

Secondly, my opponent addresses my point about the media's influence on children. While I agree that campaigns can be started in order to try to get harmful content removed it is not always possible. In a democratic western society such moves could be considered censorship and an attack on free speech. Censorship and democracy are two things that usually don't mix too well.

Thirdly, my opponent addresses the issue of time. He is correct that many T.V shows can be viewed on DVD's if the child can't view the shows within the allotted time slot. However, this is an extra purchase that could cost more money that could instead be spent on enrolling a child in recreational activities. These activities are superior to watching T.V as they could get the child out socializing, trying new things, and getting healthy.

Finally, the issue of books is addressed. My opponent mentions "Barbie". Often these books contain little educational content so it's likely the child wouldn't be seeing skinny girls in books if they're not reading things such as "Barbie". There are books that are much better for education that don't feature skinny girls such as Dora The Explorer(http://di1.shopping.com...) and Sesame Street(http://cdn2.overstock.com...).

Again, I thank my opponent for an interesting debate. Now I'll pass it off to the audience... Please vote fairly! :)
Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
well tv is so bad for childerns.
my nephews and nieces.
they watch tv all the time.
watch cartoons.
so they dont play physical games.
they are not strong and dont eat.
with out physical games or activities.
kids are become paralyzed.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
know*
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
the girl now the name of best game.
loll.
grand theft auto.
not very best.
but best.
top is
GOD OF WAR.
indeed the children must not play.
Posted by Rakiela 7 years ago
Rakiela
yes , but limited timee :P
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
Yes, this derailed. Blame me. I didn't know how to refute Mirza's already existing arguments so I had to come up with my own, haha.
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
My task here was generally to prove that it is not harmful to watch TV during a school week, and refute Jannah's arguments. I did that properly, I believe.

Also, I know that in my second round, I did not post a very needed source, but is the point not to vote on one who has the most reliable sources from those he has posted? Mine were good in round one, and in round two, I did not really need more. I just had to refute the arguments.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
I don't think either debater really stayed on topic. For instance, INH pointed out that many shows are inappropriate for children and that's true. However, what does that have to do with watching DURING THE SCHOOL WEEK? I was under the impression that this debate was going to be about restricting TV time to weekends and/or designating the week as educational time only; however, neither debater mentioned it at length. INH did say that the programs suitable for children may be on during school hours, however, Mirza pointed out that there are other programs on after school and mentioned the possibility of TV DVDs. Hmm. So all in all I guess I would have liked if Con elaborated on why TV would be a waste of time and resources -- even a semantics debate about watching educational films or internet clips instead would have been permissible lol. I dunno.
Posted by Firejack 7 years ago
Firejack
I love how con pulled out video games at the end. The answer is simple however. Parents should simply not buy their child the video game. In the U.S., you must be 18 or older to purchase a M rated game. Also, child friendly TV shows usually do not depict rape, murder, and stealing (unlike grand theft auto).

A child may simply find it hard to read, or lack understanding when reading. During TV, they can hear the voice, and understand it better. It also helps tone of voice.
Posted by belle 7 years ago
belle
haha. i find it amusing that the two educational books INH mentioned are actually based off of tv shows :P
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
I think you are referring to debate.org/debate/12017 -- I was about to accept it, but SAC8 did it before me. I then started one myself.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by yayawhatever 7 years ago
yayawhatever
MirzaInsertNameHereTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
MirzaInsertNameHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
MirzaInsertNameHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:32 
Vote Placed by DebatePro 7 years ago
DebatePro
MirzaInsertNameHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Lovebotlass17 7 years ago
Lovebotlass17
MirzaInsertNameHereTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by The_0rigin 7 years ago
The_0rigin
MirzaInsertNameHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Firejack 7 years ago
Firejack
MirzaInsertNameHereTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by debater777 7 years ago
debater777
MirzaInsertNameHereTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42