The Instigator
spencetheguy
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

Controlling the Media is Necessary to Win and Prevent Wars (5 rounds)

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,513 times Debate No: 1599
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (14)

 

spencetheguy

Pro

don't get me wrong, i believe in the bill of rights and freedom of the press with reasonable limitations. the connotation of the bill of rights is that one can do whatever you want as long as it does not restrict the liberty of others. when the media goes bezerk for or against any war the pubic opinion follows even if it compromises national security. also the media is first and foremost a profit oriented industry and will canter to the wants of the general population.
examples

william randough herst faked and falsified news reports and illustrations to get the united states to got to war with spain. when the battleship maine blew up he immediately blamed the spanish. war makes news and people buy news. people also support wars when the papers tell them to. the US won the unnecessary war with spain.

in WWII there were tight restrictions placed on the media. reporters couldn't publish photographs or reports that the government felt would hurt the war effort, and because of the tremendous support at home the allies won.

in vietnam because it was not a formal war the media had a heyday publishing stories that would only feed the fire of peace activism started by guilt ridden draft dodgers. so the media made more money and the US pulled out of vietnam. the Vietcong new this and did several suicide raids on important sites and buildings knowing that the american papers would make it sound way out of proportion to pander to the peace loving homeland. and it did. our military was far superior but everyone thinks we stunk because the media portrayed it that way. so when the US left because of pressure form home, millions of south vietnamese were put in concentration camps and killed by the communists.

these are a few examples when the media in want of profit caused unnecessary wars to start and necessary wars to end. (we can all agree that leaving vietnam was a mistake that cost the lives of millions of civilians)

i made this debate 5 rounds so don't make it too long please there should be plenty of time to be as specific as you want later.

to conclude a restriction of the media is necessary to protect lives in time of war.
Korezaan

Con

Because JFK says so, I negate the resolution that states "resolved: controlling the media is necessary to win and prevent wars".

Since my opponent requested that "[he] made this debate 5 rounds so don't make it too long please there should be plenty of time to be as specific as [I] want later", and I'm not too sure what he meant by that, I will use this as a cross examination to his case.

I would like to implement the following for this round.

PR1 - Intro/Case (I'm assuming he didn't put his entire case here.)
CR1 - CX (Preview to case)
PR2 - Respond/Further case explanation
CR2 - Respond/Full case
PR3 - CX/Respond/Case
CR3 - Respond/Case
PR4 - Respond/Case
CR4 - Respond/Case
PR5 - Respond/Case/Voters
CR5 - Respond/Case Voters

If my opponent does not agree to this structure that'll be fine. I am not putting my case in this first one however, just to be on the safe side. With that, I have a few questions to pose about the affirmative case.

Just as a heads up, some of my questions may seem ridiculous, some of the answers may seem obvious, but I would just like to hear an answer from you :)

Also, at the end of each of my question, there's an implied (now its explicit) "why?" involved. I just thought it'd hurt everybody's eyes seeing the same word/idea so many times.

__________________

What is your definition of "Controlling"?
What is your definition of "Necessary"?
What is your definition of "War"?

Why are all wars bad?

Do you agree that you have the following burdens:
1) it is necessary to control the media in times of war?
2) it is necessary to control the media to prevent wars?
3) controlling the media wins and prevents wars?

Can you elaborate on your examples please?

Is your highest "value" 'security' or is it 'saving lives'? I can't tell just from reading your case; it sounds like it can go both ways. If you don't have one, just say that.

Why is saving lives / security the most important criteria?
If not controlling the media gets more of the same types of benefits, do I win?
If I prove there's a war where we do not stifle the press and win, do I win?
What else do I have to show to win?
Debate Round No. 1
spencetheguy

Pro

sounds great
would it be appropriate to look at this from an american standpoint?

definition of controlling-exerting influence to persuade to a opinion or action
necessary-in this context of necessary wars it is a war where the pros outweigh the cons.
war-right i see your point. i use(d) the term war to describe an armed conflict between two peoples, nations etc.

why are all wars bad?
no i did not say all wars are bad. reflecting on history we can see the outcomes of various conflicts that show that either it was a mistake to get involved or it was the right decision.
WWII- at the time it seemed like a bad idea but we did fight, suffer and sacrifice and won. stopping hitler and japan was worth all the expenditures and losses. the media was tightly controlled and mail to and from the troops was censored. morale was high and the US won.

to my understanding based on personal opinion and a study of history, any time that the general population is knowledgeable of the true horrors of war, it immediately turns against the conflict in question and the media has the power to reveal that information. when the media has full disclosure of the horrors of war the public wants peace even if peace is not the right decision.

i agree that it is necessary to control/restrict the media in times of war.
the media has the power to start and end wars and not all ways for the right reasons.

the spanish American war. we spent a lot of money. lost a lot of troops, equipment, inflicted extraordinary casualties and gained a few spikes of islands in far off places that did not benefit us all because of ambitious newspapermen. here the power of the media was not controlled and a useless war was started.

in vietnam reporters were appalled by the war as they would by any war and told the american public what they wanted to hear that is to stop fighting to make more money. so the US pulled out of vietnam prematurely that in retrospect was a mistake.

i used the terms security and saving lives arbitrarily meaning no particular reason. generally national/international security involves saving lives.

i will admit defeat if you can provide examples where the power of the media was used for the greater good and not for the gain of profit in times of war.
there will always be outliers so we both need to look at general pasterns of the data.

to summarize the media will always canter to what the public wants to hear and not always the truth resulting is lost wars and won wars that were not necessary. to win a war the public needs to be kept oblivious to the horrors that it is.
Korezaan

Con

(Sorry I took so long. Did some research.)

If by "american standpoint" you mean that the "wars" in the topic are only wars that America has fought or will fight in, then that's fine. Makes my job easier as well.

I will first talk about his individual points, then his general thesis, and finally provide my own independent reasons of why it is unnecessary to win and prevent wars.

1)"Wars" - I'm assuming this is here to make the difference between which wars we need to win and which ones we need to prevent. I'll accept that. Makes things easier.

2)"WW2" - You contradict yourself by saying it was a bad idea and worth the expenditures at the same time. I take the latter position, and say it was a good idea for the US to be involved with and ultimately end the war. Your argument here is that the media was tightly controlled, and therefore morale was high and the US won. However, this argument fails on three levels.

A) I don't see any proof that the media was being censored. With all the other things that conspiracy theorists, the History Channel, and Wikipedia dig up, I have yet to read anything that said communication during WW2 between troops and people back home was tightly controlled.

B) There is no link between "high morale" and "censored communication".

C) We did not win because of high morale, we won because of the Manhattan Project.

3)"Understanding" - Ah, so this is your reason for why it is necessary. Well, before this argument can be true, you'll have to provide: an american example in which we SHOULD be at war, and DUE TO the right of free press, the American public wanted out of that war. (Or, you can provide a detailed hypothetical. Either one is fine with me.)

Definition of should: obligated to do X action.

4) "S.A. War" - This, I'm assuming, is how you reach the second burden i placed upon you (preventing wars). From what I've looked up, the initial reason why the war started was because we were demanding Spain to give Cuba independence, and when the USS Maine was mysteriously blown up, a guy called Hearst blamed the Spanish government for it. You say that "here the power of the media was not controlled and a useless war was started." I agree that this was an unnecessary war.

However, the governments of Spain and America themselves did not know what caused the war, and because of that the media is free to speculate. The media ought to have some restraint in and of itself, I agree, but it never works if the government attempts to impose control upon them. Sometimes they do recognize the matter however, so it's not necessary to control the media to prevent unnecessary wars.

If freedom of speech and the press create situations where a person calls fire in a crowded theater, censoring of the freedom will only cause honest people and journalists to suspect that something is going on.

5) "Vietnam" To start off, I vehemently disagree that this was a necessary war. We supposedly entered the war because the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy were being fired upon. This is now known to be false, and was just President Johnson leading us into an unnecessary war. This by itself already disproves your attempt to use this example to prove your third burden (winning wars), because we weren't supposed to be in it. If you want this argument to stand, you'll have to prove that we had an overriding obligation to be there.

But even if you overlook this...

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. You say that "the media told the american public what they wanted to hear, which is stop fighting and make more money". This is wrong on three levels.

A) The media didn't do that. All (I know is that) they videotaped the things happening in Vietnam and reported how many died every week or so.

B) You don't show how the media was doing that to the American public.

C) War creates employment, employment creates money. Having no war means less employment, leading to less money.

The last argument you make is that "US pull[ing] out of vietnam prematurely that in retrospect was a mistake." I believe this is wrong, AGAIN. We had no obligation to be there in the first place; we shouldn't be involved in other nation's affairs when they don't want us to be. Even if you don't believe that, even if you believe that we are supposed to be the world hegemon and police, the attack on our destroyers was a farce, and EVEN IF you don't believe that it was staged, there is NO REASON that PT boats firing on Destroyers should lead to a full-fledged war. And EVEN IF you don't believe THAT, America leaving the war was a good idea. Soldiers were dying every day, and for no purpose other than, supposedly, to help South Vietnam gain its independence. Well, according to Eisenhower....

>>>'The US diplomatically blocks Vietnamese elections because "80% would vote for Communist, Ho Chi Minh." -Memoirs of Dweight D Eisenhower, 1965

My own personal thoughts can be summarized by Mike Gravel at a previous presidential debate before he started being corporately censored and taken out of the public eye.

>>>You can now, John, go to Hanoi, and get a Baskin Robbins ice cream cone. That's what you can do. And now we have most favored nation trade! What did all these people die for? -Mike Gravel

Well, you tell me. Otherwise this is not an example of why we need to control the media.

7) "Burden" - "i will admit defeat if you can provide examples where the power of the media was used for the greater good and not for the gain of profit in times of war. there will always be outliers so we both need to look at general pasterns of the data."

Since I am starting my case, I will respond to this now.

Throughout your own case you attempt to prove the value of "security/saving lives" and in your summary you explicitly say "to win a [necessary] war the public needs to be kept oblivious to the horrors that it is."

However, I don't see any reason why security and war is necessarily linked to saving lives, and why informing the public of the horrors of war is not. First of all, the obvious: War does not save lives. You cannot possibly achieve the value of saving lives if peace does not take any. "Security" is something I don't see you linking in to.

But even if you DO link into it, even if I DID miss something.... the whole notion that we should keep the public oblivious and fight wars is appalling. Throughout your case you mention necessary and unnecessary when describing a war: But who's to say when a war is necessary or not? The definition cannot be used here, because we are only able to measure if theres more pros than cons or vice versa is AFTER the war has ended.

Your definition says "more pros than cons" and your the burden you place on me is "making the greater good". I believe that when it comes to weighing if it is necessary to control the media, we ought not weigh its effects on the war at hand, but its effects on the people.

The source of whether a war's initial reason is necessary or not ought to come from the people. Since we cannot weigh if we're going to have a "good" war or a "bad" war before we have it, the public ought to be informed. If we're in a war, the public should STILL be informed, so that when they want us to pull out, it is legit. There is no other way of weighing if we should be in a war or not: We have a moral imperative to NOT control the media.

You say that "to win a [necessary] war the public needs to be kept oblivious to the horrors that it is", but if the public is kept oblivious, who's deciding if we're supposed to be in the war or if it's necessary? Who's telling us? If the public wants OUT, then we should NOT be in the war. It's that simple!

Ran out of space; my bad. More case explanation in R3.
Debate Round No. 2
spencetheguy

Pro

I will compare and contrast my examples.
my opponent missed one important fact that when the US formally declares war the legality of the first amendment changes so that the government can control the press to aid the war effort. this would explain the lack of conspiracy theories regarding this matter because ti was all perfectly legal.

spanish american war
newspapers prosperously misrepresented the spanish and their treatment of the cubans to start a war. when the USS maine exploded the US was already clambering for war and was looking for an excuse so the newspapers reported it an act of spanish aggression and started the war that we both agree was wasteful/unnecessary to protect/presence all that mishmash. it has not been proven that the spanish id cause the explosion of the maine but send me the evidence and i can change my mind.

WWII
after Perl harbor the american public wanted to hear how great the war effort was and about the heroism of the troops. letters were censored legaly by the government and reporters were not allowed to publish photos or articles that showed how bad the war was. the war remained popular throng the strategic bombing of civilian targets, the destruction of dresden, the firebombing of tokyo, the atomic bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki. so the media was controlled to some extent but not strictly because a newspaper criticizing the war would not sell well anyway.

vietnam
LBJ overreacts to an incident in the gulf of tonkin that plunges the US into war. this war was different in that war was not formally declared that would of allowed for the legal restriction of the media. the Media using new technology like TV and videos showed the american public the true horrors of war. naturally the war that began as a popular tuned sour. soon under increasing public pressure the US pulls out without achieving its objective.
we can debate over the vietnam war but that is another debate that i would love to participate in.
here are the facts.
when the US left millions of vietnamese fled the country to escape the oppressive communists.
those left behind were placed in reeducation camps where hundreds of thousands of south vietnamese died of hunger and exposure compared to the 50 thousand Us troops that had died so far. the south thrived while the US aided them drive out an forigen and oppressive invader producing more and sustaining a stronger economy than its northern counterpart. this all collapsed when the US left.
we can debate the motives and whatever another time. is this evidence that i presented show that it was a mistake to leave? the suffering and death that we left in our wake is that right? i say no. if we entered for the wrong reasons i say we leave for the right reasons. that is when we have won or we lost. neither happened but the war ended for the wrong reasons because of pressure from home as a result of the media. we gave up because of the media.
lets compare WWII and vietnam and the role of the Media.

a reporter broke the story of an platoon of American troops that massacred over a hundred vietnamese civilians. this caused an uproar because the media portrayed it so strongly and negatively. that the war was a horrible and nefarious thing that made Americans into monsters.

two atomic bombs are dropped on the japanese cities of hiroshima and nagasaki killing over 150,000 civilians instantly. america celebrated as this action of inhumanity brought japan to its knees.

as you can see the power of the Media can make a small incident seem huge and a horrible action seem humane.

other examples of american barbarity i listed above that killed millions. no such incidents happened in vietnam but we all remember it as a war of countless atrocities. interesing....

i will refute my opponents argument.

my opponent argued that the controlling the media is a violation of human rights and that is why it should not be controlled. however, this argument does not adress my argument. i argue that its necessary to control the media to prevent it form guiding the american people in a misguided direction and to war and to loosing wars. i ask my opponent to adress my argument.
i will admit defeat if my opponent can provide sufficient argument that if the Media is given free reign it will report accurately and relatively to the actual events to inform and not to just make money in times of war.
Korezaan

Con

I will refute his points in the order he presents them, and provide my own arguments alongside my responses.

"You" is now the audience, not my opponent.

__________________

spencetheguy's burdens in this round are to prove that
1) it is necessary to control the media in times of war
2) it is necessary to control the media to prevent wars

R1 and R2 was pretty confusing about these, so I thought I'd clear this up.

Overview) "my opponent missed one important fact [...] ti was all perfectly legal."

This is essentially the 'fact' I am arguing against. I am saying that freedom of the press and freedom of speech should NOT be "moderated" during times of war, and my PERSONAL belief is that it should NEVER be moderated. I have provided a reason why this is true at the end of my case, when I talk about who defines what wars are necessary. He does not refute that, and says that I am "misguided". I don't believe I am misguided, especially when I am questioning how the resolution/topic is evaluated in the first place. My argument here is that the only agent that can legitly say what is necessary or not is the people, and they cannot decide if they do not have all the information.

John F Kennedy explained why this issue was so impertinent in his speech "The President and the Press", delivered on April 27th 1961:

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment."

He continues, with his own thoughts and a solution, one which I agree with and one which will serve as my 'counterplan' for this debate.

"I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all."

I have two other responses to his first argument -
1) Vietnam was not an officially declared war; if he chooses to continue to use this response, you do not meet your third burden because Vietnam is now 'not a war'. By doing this he also changes his definition... and I am no longer sure what the advocacy is.
2) Actually there are a lot of conspiracy theories regarding the controlling of the media. I can provide you a link to one if you want.

S-A) 1) I don't see how getting rich has to do with winning or preventing wars. Getting rich does not necessarily require misrepresentations of foreign countries. Misrepresenting foreign countries does not necessarily mean getting rich.
2) "the US was already clambering for war" - Where's your proof?
3) "we both agree was wasteful/unnecessary to protect/presence all that mishmash" - But I do not agree with your methods. As I started explaining last round and extrapolated on this round, censorship is not the way. In R2 I already refuted this: "However, the governments of Spain and America themselves did not know what caused the [battleship to explode] (my bad, I meant to type that last round), and because of that the media is free to speculate."
4) I never advocated that Spain blew up the ship. Refer to previous point.
5) I have a new argument: Even though he is using the S-A war as an example to prove that it is necessary to control the media to prevent unnecessary wars, this is a perfect example to disprove his other burden: We didn't control the media here, yet we won the S-A war! Therefore it is not necessary to control the media to win wars, and he loses the debate already.

WW2) He did not refute any of my points.

Vietnam)

"when the US left millions of vietnamese fled the country to escape the oppressive communists." - Even if there were millions, my Eisenhower quote still stands - "80% would vote for Communist, Ho Chi Minh"

"those left behind were placed in reeducation camps where hundreds of thousands of south vietnamese died of hunger and exposure compared to the 50 thousand Us troops that had died so far. the south thrived while the US aided them drive out an forigen and oppressive invader producing more and sustaining a stronger economy than its northern counterpart. this all collapsed when the US left." - This is refuted by Mike Gravel - "You can now, John, go to Hanoi, and get a Baskin Robbins ice cream cone. That's what you can do. And now we have most favored nation trade! What did all these people die for?"

His next few lines are very confusing... I believe at one point he says that he supports the CON ("is this evidence that i presented show that it was a mistake to leave? the suffering and death that we left in our wake is that right? i say no."), but even if you overlook that, he is still not affirming/supporting his own side.

He says "we neither won or lost" - I can for sure, say that we LOST: We didn't achieve the goals we marched in there with. Which was, by the way, wrong to begin with. But we couldn't have won that war anyways: NV knew our rules of engagement which were pretty wack (ex: missile systems could not be bombed unless they were known to be fully operational, enemies could not be pursued into surrounding countries, etc.), the US was supplying things the Russia, who in turn used those to give weapons to NV, who then used those to kill our troops........ all arrows point to us losing more troops if we stayed there.

"this caused an uproar because the media portrayed it so strongly and negatively."

Good. We shouldn't be fighting a war we aren't supposed to be in anyways. Our purpose was to give democracy, which wasn't going to happen, according to Eisenhower, so it was a useless war to begin with. he hasn't showed how we should win all wars, and I have proved that we couldn't have won Vietnam anyways.

"america celebrated as this action of inhumanity brought japan to its knees."

I can tell you, there were a lot of people that didn't like the atomic bomb. Just look at the whole hippie era.

"as you can see the power of the Media can make a small incident seem huge and a horrible action seem humane. "

But censorship is not the answer.

"however, this argument does not adress my argument"

It COMPLETELY addresses his argument: It argues that the assumptions his case is based upon are COMPLETELY FALSE.

"i will admit defeat if my opponent can provide sufficient argument that if the Media is given free reign it will report accurately and relatively to the actual events to inform and not to just make money in times of war."

I win in 2 ways: 1) He doesn't meet his burdens, he has the burden of proof, and 2) that is not my burden, all i have to do is show that it is not necessary and I have done that, PLUS he NEVER shows that the media ONLY wants to make money and doesn't care about the reliability of its sources.

By the way, the money thing is nontopical. Just if you didn't notice.
Debate Round No. 3
spencetheguy

Pro

my opponent had fine arguments. however the arguments posted to contradict mine do not contradict mine. i have made my arguments why i am in favor of the topic and the response is that controlling the media is immoral and wrong. but why, i have argued with examples that controlling the media is a necessary component to winning wars. i have given my examples how the Media was not controlled, when it was and when it was not. my opponent has only refuted my examples and presented none to support the con argument. once again i will admit defeat if my opponent can provide sufficient evidence to state that when the media was controlled wars were lost, when the Media was not controlled unnecessary wars were not started. the argument that controlling the media is immoral is hopeless. is not war immoral in itself? i agree that controlling the media is immoral. but i am arguing that it is a necessary part of winning wars.

i suggest that my usage of Vietnam is too controversial and that it should be dropped for the sake of simplicity. i will be perfectly fine continuing on my other two examples. i do this because i have not lost that case but i fear it will distract from the true subject at hand.
Korezaan

Con

I disagree with the dropping of the vietnam argument. It does not seem to be controversial to me, nobody has yet commented on this debate, and he has given no warrants. I think that just because I was able to give a very detailed and warrants that weren't just my personal analytics, that it should be dropped. His only reason is that it will distract from the true subject at hand, but I disagree. It is VERY adherent to the topic: is controlling the media necessary to win and prevent wars? My position is no and I have clearly linked Vietnam to the topic in the previous two rounds.

My opponent then says that I have not provided any examples to support the CON's side. This is both true and untrue: Although it is true that I have not provided any examples of any other wars, I have used the examples he has provided and turned them to work for my position. This already turns the argument against him; if his examples are working for me then he has no examples, and if he's trying to use the argument that no examples = no vote, then you already have no reason to vote PRO.

Regardless of that however, I do not need to provide any examples of my own. The burden of proof is on the affirmative to show that controlling the media is necessary to win and prevent wars, not on the negative to show that it is unnecessary. He has not done that yet, so the CON is already winning.

"the response is that controlling the media is immoral and wrong. but why, i have argued with examples that controlling the media is a necessary component to winning wars."(R4-Pro)

I have explained on two levels why it is wrong, if not, impossible to vote PRO on this topic. The second level I talked about in R2, where I talk about a term in the resolution - "necessary". I explain that we cannot know if an action in a war was or wasn't necessary until the war has ended, as you cannot weigh the "more pro's than con's" meta-burden he attempted to place on me. I give an alternative way of weighing the debate: The effects on the people at hand at that time. Then I further extrapolated that the people are the only way to determine if a war is necessary or not, and if you affirm, you cannot weigh anything. The first level goes summarizes the argument I have presented, in portions of JFK's speeech I have cut out. He asks "but why", well, I have already done so.

"i have given my examples how the Media was not controlled, when it was and when it was not."

He has not. For WW2, I have been waiting for HIS response since R2: I asked him to provide evidence to support his claim. Since he has not, his "example" is nothing more than an assertion. For the S-A war, I wrote, verbatim, "the governments of Spain and America themselves did not know what caused the war, and because of that the media is free to speculate." Also, we did not control the media during the S-A war.... and whaddya know, we won that war! This example HE provided already kills his position, because this proves that it is NOT necessary to control the media to prevent wars, one of the two burdens BOTH of which he must achieve in order for you to vote PRO.

"once again i will admit defeat if my opponent can provide sufficient evidence to state that when the media was controlled wars were lost, when the Media was not controlled unnecessary wars were not started."

Contrary to what he wants you to believe, his arguments on what my burden is has changed constantly:

"i will admit defeat if my opponent can provide sufficient argument that if the Media is given free reign it will report accurately and relatively to the actual events to inform and not to just make money in times of war." (R3-Pro)

"i will admit defeat if you can provide examples where the power of the media was used for the greater good and not for the gain of profit in times of war." (R2-Pro)

I have refuted the R2 burden by saying that we can't weigh "greater good" until everything is over (an argument I've had since R2), and I have shown that the R3 burden is fallacious because all I have to do is prove that it is unnecessary to control the media. For this NEW burden he has just place upon me, it is also false. Again, I have no burden but to show that the PRO does not reach their burden, because in this debate he has the burden of proof. He has yet to achieve that. He gives me two prongs in the R4 burden, and I have already achieved one of them: We controlled the media during Vietnam, saying that the overwhelming majority of people there wanted democracy when they actually would vote Communist, and we LOST. The other one is easy and simple: We don't control the media today; we evaded war with North Korea. I'm winning, thank you very much.

"the argument that controlling the media is immoral is hopeless. is not war immoral in itself? i agree that controlling the media is immoral. but i am arguing that it is a necessary part of winning wars."

He agrees that controlling the media is immoral, and that already proves the NEG/CON side true. He then talks about war, and I say that the value he supposedly accepted early on in this debate, security/saving lives, ("generally national/international security involves saving lives." (R2-Pro)), is something he does NOT achieve, since he wants to win wars. War kills people. He already fails to achieve it. It doesn't matter if the value links to the topic or not; he accepted it and he's losing.

His final arg is that controlling the media is a necessary part of winning wars.

I have already disproved that.

So in short, you already have 4 main reasons to vote CON:

1) I have proved all 3 burdens he has placed upon me
2) He has not proved the two burdens I've placed upon him
3) It is impossible to vote PRO because you can't weigh if something has more PRO's or CON's until the war is over
4) It is impossible to vote PRO because keeping the public oblivious will make weighing the resolution impossible.
Debate Round No. 4
spencetheguy

Pro

spencetheguy forfeited this round.
Korezaan

Con

My opponent forfeited, and even if that was a mistake, he has failed to affirm the entirety of the resolution and therefore you must negate.

I would go into other reasons but those were explained in my R4 and I'm not about to take actions that would insult the audiences' intelligence.

Thank you very much please have a nice day.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Even if you drop every single other argument I make, Spence has never provided evidence on how the media was censored, and I've been asking for that since R2. He stated that he "gave examples" for his side, okay that's fine, but he never gives warrants for what he said happened in his examples, IE, the censoring led to winning wars and uncensoring led to losing wars.

Therefore even if you overlook all of my arguments he still loses because he has not provided any backup evidence at ALL. He keeps saying he provides examples but all that serves to do is evade my point: He makes claims, but not warrants.

And then you look to the arguments I make within rounds. I fulfill my burdens as well, so you have multiple layers and reasons to vote CON. Unlike what my opponent proposes, not all of the arguments I make in there were about morals or ethics.
Posted by spencetheguy 9 years ago
spencetheguy
hey that was fun
i was traveling and got stuck in an airport, sorry for the inconvenience but it can't be helped. here is my argument.

well i have already said all that i can say about my examples and vietnam. may i please remind you that this is a debate whether controlling the media is a necessity action that results to a won war, won useless war, lost useful war.

THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT ETHICS OR MORALS
it is unethical to control the media-but that is not the point at hand. is it necessary to control in times of civil unrest and war, and that is what i argued using my examples. i have changed my "i will admit defeat if.." to clarify expand and explain more as my arguments were challenged.
to the voters:
i have given examples that give support for my argument and my opponent none. he has not responded to my arguments or presented a counter theory. the con side needed to show that controlling the media is NOT necessary for winning, avoiding wars and he has not done so. only what i propose is unethical.
Posted by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
whoah. A pretty intense debate. I wouldve played alot heavier on the "yellow Journalism" of the Spanish American war and the De Lome letter. Just my opinion.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
spencetheguyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by roycegee 8 years ago
roycegee
spencetheguyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ronnyyip 8 years ago
ronnyyip
spencetheguyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by wooferalot101 8 years ago
wooferalot101
spencetheguyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by yoon172 9 years ago
yoon172
spencetheguyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
spencetheguyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ninjanuke 9 years ago
Ninjanuke
spencetheguyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ahundredhighways 9 years ago
ahundredhighways
spencetheguyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dabigdood 9 years ago
dabigdood
spencetheguyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
spencetheguyKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03