The Instigator
Adam2isback
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Jellyfysh624
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

"Fresh" (Samuel L Jackson) should have been NC-17, not R

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 1 vote the winner is...
Jellyfysh624
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 578 times Debate No: 64194
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Adam2isback

Pro

I believe context is what matters here. There was a lot of content that was too harsh for just even a hard R rating. One of them involves innocent kids in senseless shootings, all because jealousy is provoked, when the kids mostly never did anything. The urban violence in this movie is extremely intense. There is one violent scene that is extremely and viciously disturbing. Add to that the intense use of drugs and the graphic depiction of, all people, a 12-year-old selling drugs. You also have some sex and really pervasive language.

This movie is harsher than even the most R-rated of movies. Even "Silence of the Lambs" was not as disturbing as this one.
IN many respects this movie is a more grim version of "Kids."
Jellyfysh624

Con

A rated R film requires a parent or guardian to be present with anyone under the age of 17 in the theater.

A rated NC-17 film does not allow any one under the age of 17 in the theater.

To say this movie should be rated NC-17, you are asserting that no one under the age of 17 should be allowed to see it.

Who are you to make that decision? Who is anyone that is not the parent of the child in question to make that decision? The decision should be left to the parents, thus this movie, and all other movies should not be rated NC-17.
Debate Round No. 1
Adam2isback

Pro

A rated R film requires a parent or guardian to be present with anyone under the age of 17 in the theater.

A rated NC-17 film does not allow any one under the age of 17 in the theater.

To say this movie should be rated NC-17, you are asserting that no one under the age of 17 should be allowed to see it.

Who are you to make that decision? Who is anyone that is not the parent of the child in question to make that decision? The decision should be left to the parents, thus this movie, and all other movies should not be rated NC-17.

This is about semantics, not emotion.

Fresh has many things that make it an NC-17. It's not so much the violence itself. Clockers, Silence of the Lambs, GoodFellas all have R-rated violence, but it's more because it's nothing we haven't seen before.

Fresh has one very vicious slaying that happens because a kid beats a punk at basketball, so the guy shoots him in broad daylight. That is not a normal thing. But yet again, it's jealousy, which is worse than revenge. The boy did nothing to this guy to deserve that. Another thing that makes this movie NC-17 is the nature of the drug dealings. It's very graphic, but it also involves a young 12-year-old caught up in this problem. It's not an 18-year-old or even a 17-year-old.

Fresh is very similar to Kids, minus all the sex (this movie has sex but not as much, it's very brief).

Fresh is not an R movie, but an NC-17 one.
Jellyfysh624

Con

None of those assertions discredit mine. The movie should not be NC-17. No amount of violence, brutality, or drug dealing should render a movie un-watchable for a child to watch. If the parent decides the child may see the movie then they may.

You talk about a 12 year old selling drugs, that can and does happen in real life. Just because it isn't something you are used to, does not mean that it is inappropriate. if the movie showed a 3 year old selling drugs, it still should not be rated NC-17

Any one can decide for themselves what is and is not appropriate, just because you or even a majority of people think that violence is not appropriate does not make violence inherently inappropriate. That decision should be left to the individual viewers.

Your assertion is that the movie should be rated NC-17. Should the movie have a more severe rating than R? Perhaps, but until they invent something that is not restrictive like NC-17, and still more severe that R, they should keep the rating R.

On a side note:
Ratings should only exist as a way for parents to measure the content of what their children are watching, and what an adult individual decides to watch. As soon as a rating comes up that restricts that freedom, there is a problem.
Debate Round No. 2
Adam2isback

Pro

None of those assertions discredit mine. The movie should not be NC-17. No amount of violence, brutality, or drug dealing should render a movie un-watchable for a child to watch. If the parent decides the child may see the movie then they may.

You talk about a 12 year old selling drugs, that can and does happen in real life. Just because it isn't something you are used to, does not mean that it is inappropriate. if the movie showed a 3 year old selling drugs, it still should not be rated NC-17

Any one can decide for themselves what is and is not appropriate, just because you or even a majority of people think that violence is not appropriate does not make violence inherently inappropriate. That decision should be left to the individual viewers.

Your assertion is that the movie should be rated NC-17. Should the movie have a more severe rating than R? Perhaps, but until they invent something that is not restrictive like NC-17, and still more severe that R, they should keep the rating R.

On a side note:
Ratings should only exist as a way for parents to measure the content of what their children are watching, and what an adult individual decides to watch. As soon as a rating comes up that restricts that freedom, there is a problem.

No amount of violence, brutality or drug dealing should be too much for kids to watch, but certain things should not be exposed to kids. I would rather my kid watch GoodFellas than Fresh. Because the nature of the business is a little more natural in nature (greed does exist). But at least, it doesn't involve children (and yes, there are times when movies rate based on questionable actions involving teens and children). This movie involves children in drug dealers. Not only that the nature of the murders are just plain disturbing. A kid's mind can be disturbed very easily. I know I was by certain things I saw.

Examples of movies that are just R alone for questionable stuff involving children, according to official MPAA reasoning

http://www.imdb.com...;
http://www.imdb.com...
http://www.imdb.com...

Like I said, it's not so much the violence itself (I don't have qualms about the murders later on the in the movie, because anyone would agree, the punks deserve it), but the murders involving innocent children, all for jealousy-related reasons. I can't even see that scene anymore. Now, that's not the reason I want it to be NC-17. I do this with kids in mind. I know kids would not be ready for something like that. This is a movie that portrays gang life in very intense and graphic detail.
Jellyfysh624

Con

If you would rather your kid watch Goodfellas than Fresh, then you can make that choice simply by choosing it. If I had a child who was young I would not take them to see this movie. If I had a child that was 14, 15, 16, or 17 and wanted to see this movie, I would have no problem taking them to see it. Unfortunately I would not be allowed to make that decision if the movie was rated NC-17.

Yes a young child can be disturbed by graphic scenes, but since the movie is rated R I already know that I wouldn't take a young child to see it. The issue isnt about young, disturbable minds seeing this, no decent parent would take their 5 or 6 year old to see it. This is about the restriction it would place on the parent that wants to see it with there mature teenage child.

Your assertment is for the specific rating of NC-17, and I have proven that the movie should not be rated NC-17. Perhaps it should be rated more severly than R due to its graphic content, but it should most definately not be rated NC-17.

So I will assert for the last time, Fresh should not be rated NC-17. No amount of "inapropriate content should render this movie or any movie, not allowed for children under 17.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
Adam2isbackJellyfysh624Tied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Tbh this won it for me: "Yes a young child can be disturbed by graphic scenes, but since the movie is rated R I already know that I wouldn't take a young child to see it. The issue isnt about young, disturbable minds seeing this, no decent parent would take their 5 or 6 year old to see it. This is about the restriction it would place on the parent that wants to see it with there mature teenage child. " Nothing else had weight on who won arguments it was all bs or nullified.