The Instigator
TheAdiDebater
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
NFLMember
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Don't you think the Boston Bombing was over hyped?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 6 votes the winner is...
NFLMember
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2013 Category: News
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,816 times Debate No: 32989
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

TheAdiDebater

Pro

First of all, I understand and acknowledge that the Boston bombing was a terrible event which never should have occurred. But don't you ever stop and think that a big deal is being made out of something substantially smaller? People were even thinking this could be compared to 9/11.

On the same day 42 people die in an earthquake in Iraq. But does that receive even a tenth of what the Boston bombings received. No.

This can't be defended.
NFLMember

Con

I will gladly accept this debate. The Boston Marathon bombing was a big deal. It's being considered a terrorist attack. 42 people died in Iraq by an earthquake, something that isn't deliberate and out of our control. But over here in America, people were bombed intentionally. There's a difference between the two scenarios. Yeah, people died and people die every day, but the Boston Marathon deserved the media attention it got. The bombing was a deliberate act, while the earthquake was not.
Debate Round No. 1
TheAdiDebater

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate, but I feel that you have not answered my question adequately.

Of course the marathon bombings deserve attention, but a single story need not dominate the media. That is the point I am attempting to project to you. Due to the media's reaction to the event, virtually no other stories were reported. The media repeated the same reports multiple times without paying much attention to any other major story that could could have broken during the days after the event occurred.

This is my humble opinion. Please feel free to inform me if I am mistaken in any way, or if I have not made myself clear on a certain point.
NFLMember

Con

I acknowledge your opinion, and as I say all the time, "Everyone is entitled to an opinion." Your opinion on the topic is that other things should've been broadcast, not just the bombing. Well, my opinion differs. The bombing threw America into a frenzy, which caused it to dominate the media. It wasn't just the bombing that dominated. Everything was related to the bombing, yes, but a good majority of the media was tracking down the suspects. That is another reason why it was such a big deal: knowing that the potential bombers were still on the loose and could strike again. That is why it was so dominant. The media kept citizens updated on the FBI's progress in catching the suspects to put them at ease when the suspects were caught.
Debate Round No. 2
TheAdiDebater

Pro

Once again, thank you for replying to me, I appreciate it.

You made the statement: " It wasn't just the bombing that dominated. Everything was related to the bombing, yes but a good majority of the media was tracking down the suspects"

That's my point exactly.

In fact almost all of the media was tracking the Boston suspects. What saddens me is a couple of hours of media coverage is more important than the 42 innocent people who died in Iraq. They deserved at least, and let me say this again, at least 30 to 45 minutes of attention. Also on the same day 2 people were run over by car in India by a politicians son. [One was just a baby]. As I sadly expected, no-one was notified of this sad event. The American media needs to understand that they aren't the only victims of sad events. In fact, how many times have acts of terror been commited in Asia alone? I don't want to even to start counting. Every single day.

So while the Boston bombing was a significant event, there were other events which deserved attention too.
NFLMember

Con

You're welcome, but back to the debate.

I have repeatedly said that the bombing deserved the coverage it got. That includes everything related to it. I also stated that the bombing threw America into a frenzy, fearing another attack. The reason the media only had coverage of the Boston bombing was because they wanted to keep the American citizens updated. They wanted to put the citizens at ease once the suspects were caught. The people that died in Iraq didn't affect those in America. The people that died in other countries weren't America's main priority. The Boston suspects were more threatening that a Politician's son. That's how it usually is in other countries as well; they are more concerned about what happens in their country. Those other events probably got attention in the countries in which they happened.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Liberty101 4 years ago
Liberty101
I didn't hear about the earthquake but I think a more appropriate example for this debate would be the 55 innocent Iraq citizens that were killed in a US drone strike the same day as the bombing.
Posted by VaasMontenegro 4 years ago
VaasMontenegro
WHY should we care about the depressing events happening in other nations. We, obviously, have enough depression to deal with in America. Do we really need to hear about some idiot politician's son in India running people over? And Iraq is a war zone still, what do you expect?

It's all part of the plan... What happens here, well, we don't even cover everything that happens here. If we did, you'd cover your ears and scream enough.
Posted by lmudude 4 years ago
lmudude
I dont think tat but you cam have your oppinion
Posted by Celina 4 years ago
Celina
The bombing was not over hyped in my opinion. It was an event that affected Americans and is something that we needed to be informed about. Yes, terrible things happen in other countries every minute, and that is tragic. But just because the news wasn't necessarily reporting these things on the news at this time, doesn't mean that those events go uncared about. The priorities of what was happening at that time though stayed with the bombing because it is something that was close to home, and a horrifying event.
Posted by lmudude 4 years ago
lmudude
Ok i know this debate is over but seriously the bombing was over broadcast. Yes its a terrorist attack and yes people died but not very many. About every 5 seconds someone dies but that not on the news. YEs i understand it was a big deal because it was a terrorist attack but only 4 people died. Im not saying that it was right but it wasn't like the white house was destroyed or anything it was two bombs going off killing three people and a police officer being shot. I think it deserved some attetion but the fact that people are still reporting about it is just crazy.
Posted by Anjou 4 years ago
Anjou
@Scientific: Is two hundred people a HANDFUL to you? Assuming that none of them are related, thats THOUSANDS of family members traumatized because mommy doesn't have her left leg anymore or daddy's eyes got blown out. You can't just say a two hundred people isn't a big issue.
Posted by Anjou 4 years ago
Anjou
Pro made the ridiculous assertion that we should broadcast 42 people dying in Iraq instead of a terrorist attack that injured 200 people in one of the most popular cities in America? I'm sorry, but are you stupid? By that assertion, we should report on the sixteen children that just got thrown off a mountain in China, the 56 year old in the middle of siberia who passed away today from his 63 grandchildren, and the 4 year old boy in Japan who won a game of hopscotch. Leave it to Iraq and China and Siberia and Japan to report on their stories, we don't expect them to broadcast that 20 Americans died in a plane crash if they just got an atomic bomb dropped on them or the avian flu kills off the populous of an entire region. Did pro even think before he made this debate? I'm surprised con won by such a small margin.
Posted by 4thefunofit 4 years ago
4thefunofit
The news that is focused in by the media is whatever will allow them to sell the most advertising. The news is no longer only news it is also entertainment. The Boston bombings captivated the largest crowd and allowed the news agencies to make more money.
Posted by zezima 4 years ago
zezima
the fact that it was a terrorist attack was the reason why it got attention.

persoanally im surprised with the attention it got without the fact it didnt involve any guns...
Posted by ScientificExploits 4 years ago
ScientificExploits
AdiDebater brings up a good point. Most news organizations were completely focused on the bombing, even though only 3 people were killed and a handful seriously injured.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by effimero89 4 years ago
effimero89
TheAdiDebaterNFLMemberTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I would agree with Pro. I really hate that we kill countless of people in the middle east but we have something happen to us and its very over done. Please do not take this as saying these things are ok to happen I just feel we need to open our eyes a little bit
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
TheAdiDebaterNFLMemberTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct to pro, he was overly-polite BOP fell on pro who didn't make it, no sources at all either. By default arguments go to con
Vote Placed by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
TheAdiDebaterNFLMemberTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Bald assertions debate, but Pro failed to maintain its BOP so arguments go to con.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
TheAdiDebaterNFLMemberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: I'm a runner, half-marathons mostly, so I may be a little biased, but it seemed to me the Con had better arguments and, since Pro had the BoP, I've got to give argument points to Con. By the way, Pro, don't change font in the middle of a debate. I'm fine with Comic Sans, just not after you have been using a different font. No one used sources. At all.
Vote Placed by ladygagadisco 4 years ago
ladygagadisco
TheAdiDebaterNFLMemberTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made better arguments. 1 Point to Con for NOT USING COMIC SANS.
Vote Placed by utahjoker 4 years ago
utahjoker
TheAdiDebaterNFLMemberTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was able to defend their side better