The Instigator
Qynze
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Fuchsiania
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Happy Tree Friends is a good influence on children (continued).

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,395 times Debate No: 14643
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Qynze

Pro

My opponent has not yet stated his second argument, so I have created this continuation to be fair. Please do not vote on the first debate sequence, only this one. Thank you, and sorry for the inconvenience.

For those of you who have not yet seen the other debate, before reading these arguments and voting please visit <http://www.debate.org...;.

I await Fuchsiania's argument with anticipation.
Fuchsiania

Con

Thank you, opponent, for answering with vigor. Now, how much is too much? Sure, it is practically necessary to convey emotion, but it is possible to go too far. Audience, are phrases such as "get real" or "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" really necessary? This is not a contest of displays of disdain or scorn. Sure, my opponent is attacking my points, but that does not mean that she does not aim to attack me. The phrase, "that's the stupidest idea I've ever heard" comes to mind. Consider that.

Two of my opponents points have remained standing: health and what not to do.

Health. Laughter helps health. Sure, but that's not all there is to it. Now, what is it that makes Happy Tree Friends stand out from other cartoons that children might watch? Its violence. Russia, a country in which thousands of people die of domestic violence, has banned Happy Tree Friends for its brutality and violence. [1] In 2008, the video game, Happy Tree Friends: False Alarm was released. It was rated M for blood, gore, and violence. [5] Numerous studies have shown that violent television shows and video games increase aggression. [2][3][4] As I stated, Happy Tree Friends and its video game fall into those categories. My opponent seems not to understand my analogy comparing Happy Tree Friends to fast food. Clearly, I must spell it out. Happy Tree Friends brings short-term benefits (happiness / savory taste), but the long-term effects are bad (aggression / generally low health [6]). Additionally, my opponent seems to insinuate that I believe that children are going to exactly mimic what they see on screen. Clearly, she didn't read the sentence, "While it's not likely that children will act so extremely, such hostile, violent behavior will still be embedded in children's minds." [7] If she didn't read my argument, what else do you think she didn't read?

What not to do. There are many things that one should not do. However, children will not learn from the Happy Tree Friends characters' mistakes. Why? Because children see them as role models. Yes, they do. Even cartoons such as The Simpsons and Tom and Jerry, which both feature violence, serve as role models. [8] [9] If children learn from the explicit violence in such cartoons, they can also learn from a cartoon of similar style known as Happy Tree Friends.

I have refuted the majority of my opponent's points. Thank you, and please vote for the con.

[1] http://english.pravda.ru...
[2] http://dailyuw.com...
[3] http://www.trutv.com...
[4] http://www.aacap.org...
[5] http://www.esrb.org...
[6] http://www.newscientist.com...
[7] http://www.debate.org...
[8] http://abcnews.go.com...
[9] http://hubpages.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Qynze

Pro

Qynze forfeited this round.
Fuchsiania

Con

Since my opponent has forfeited her round, so shall I.
Debate Round No. 2
Qynze

Pro


I thank my opponent for graciously allowing me to continue.

I’d like to point out, audience, that this is NOT a serious debate. As shown in the first part of this debate, even my opponent is not taking this seriously, debate. Fuchsiania himself said: “Oh, and thank you, audience, for letting us waste your time. I'll let my opponent begin the debate with his/her/its first speech, because I'm just too lazy to begin myself.” [1] Does this sound serious to you? Didn’t think so.

“AHAHA...etc" is generally taken as laughter [2]. Indeed, this is not a contest of displays of disdain or scorn; this is a contest of entertaining the audience, of proving one’s point to the audience. Is expressing my laughter in such a way considered bad? If so, I change it to “ROFL!”

“Sure, my opponent is attacking my points, but that does not mean that she does not aim to attack me.” Indeed, it doesn’t. But it doesn’t mean I aim to attack him either; I aim to play with the hint of ridicule in some of the statements. I am merely pointing out his points are an exaggeration.

“Get real” is a phrase used in MANY debates, articles, narratives, etc. Also, the implied meaning of “get real” in this context is one of sarcasm; the fact that this entire debate is not serious means that such a statement would be out of place [3]. It’s also contributing to the hint that some of the points have been unrealistically stretched [3].

“Children see Happy Tree Friends characters as role models, not as characters that children learn from the mistakes of, as my opponent stated.” I didn’t state that children learn from the mistakes of the characters, I said that children learn from the mistakes of the quality of the cartoons. Not once in ANY of my speeches for this debate did I mention the characters, or even use the word ‘characters’ [1]! If my opponent misunderstood my argument, what else do you think he misunderstood?

Audience, please keep in mind that “It targets audiences between 11 and 34 years of age”, according to my opponent’s own source [4].

My opponent has stated several articles that prove that violent cartoons do, in fact, affect children’s minds. But audience; do they apply to children 11 and over? Honestly, these statistics may affect the way a 5 year old thinks about violence, but most 11 year olds?

“Russia, a country in which thousands of people die of domestic violence, has banned Happy Tree Friends for its brutality and violence.” So? The rest of the world hasn’t.

“In 2008, the video game, Happy Tree Friends: False Alarm was released. It was rated M for blood, gore, and violence.” Does that mean children, of ages 11-34, will remember this and see them as role models? Yes, they will remember the violence. But does that mean they will act accordingly?

“My opponent seems not to understand my analogy comparing Happy Tree Friends to fast food. Clearly, I must spell it out. Happy Tree Friends brings short-term benefits (happiness / savory taste), but the long-term effects are bad (aggression / generally low health [6]).” Audience, let me say one thing: HAPPY TREE FRIENDS ≠ FAST FOOD. I understand it, all right. I understand that he has supplied a source for the fact that fast food is unhealthy. I understand he believes that both bring short term benefits, and I understand he believes the long-term effects are bad and therefore outweigh the good effects. First of all, audience, this is completely irrelevant. Fast food is not Happy Tree Friends. Following my opponent’s method of analogy, I could compare drinking to eating, since both are good in some ways, and bad in others. So yeah. Still following my opponent’s method, I can hereby supply the facts that since I can...well...drink drinks, I can drink food, too! Yeah, that’s right. Because they’re both similar, anything that applies to one applies to the other. Nope. That’s not the way analogies work. Yes, both fast food and Happy Tree Friends have their Pros and Cons, but the analogy is irrelevant, the source is irrelevant, the idea is irrelevant.

“Additionally, my opponent seems to insinuate that I believe that children are going to exactly mimic what they see on screen. Clearly, she didn't read the sentence, ‘While it's not likely that children will act so extremely, such hostile, violent behavior will still be embedded in children's minds [7].’” Did I insinuate that children are going to mimic what they see on screen? Or did I insinuate that what they see they will remember, but it will not affect them negatively? If my opponent is leaping to conclusions, what other conclusions do you think he’s leapt to? I’ve already refuted this: “My opponent has stated...etc”

“What not to do. There are many things that one should not do. However, children will not learn from the Happy Tree Friends characters' mistakes. Why? Because children see them as role models.” Children of what age? 2? The ones that shouldn’t be watching, and don’t? I’ve already refuted this. “I didn’t state that...etc"


I’d like to bring back some of my points from previous speeches.

ECONOMY - Any book, television show, movie, business, company, etc. will generate revenue for its employees. Audience, right now we are in an economic crisis, and we need jobs and money to be put out there for those who need it [5]. You and I both know that "Happy Tree Friends" falls into those categories. Whether the episodes are good or not, "Happy Tree Friends" does its share to help the economy like every other product out there.” This, indeed, is true. And while my opponent may say it does not affect the children, do not most people have children to take care of, children who need to be supported?

HEALTH - Laughter is often the best medicine. Whether it's because of good humor, funny lines, idiotic actions, or because the whole thing is just plain stupid, "Happy Tree Friends" is bound to generate laughter like any other television show, good or bad. Mocking laughter, light, airy laughter - laughter in general is healthy for the soul and mind [6].” ANY laughter caused or centered around Happy Tree Friends; any laughter that would-not-have-been without Happy Tree Friends, contributes to this point.

“WHAT NOT TO DO - We learn from mistakes - but not just our mistakes [4]. Other people's mistakes, other groups' mistakes, parents' mistakes, businesses' mistakes, television shows' mistakes - see where I'm getting at? By subconsciously judging the video, you are also telling yourself: Don't do this, it's stupid, I don't like it, so no one else will. Yeah, I think we all agree it's better to let "Happy Tree Friends" make all the mistakes. Alternatively, you could be telling yourself: Hey, this is great, let's use it. So yeah, "Happy Tree Friends" first.” I've already refuted my opponent's refutation to this point.

Sorry if my refutes were short, I didn't even get to all of them. Ran out of characters remaining. Audience, I have refuted ALL of my opponent’s one point, AND his refutations. Thank you, Fuchsiania, and audience.

Sources:
1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://en.wiktionary.org...
3. http://en.wiktionary.org...
4. http://english.pravda.ru...
5. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com...
6. http://helpguide.org...
7. http://stress.about.com...
Fuchsiania

Con

Fuchsiania forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Qynze

Pro

Qynze forfeited this round.
Fuchsiania

Con

I thank my opponent for thanking me. I also thank her for pointing out her intentions in writing such statements.

I shall review each of her points.

"'Children see Happy Tree Friends characters as role models, not as characters that children learn from the mistakes of, as my opponent stated.' I didn't state that children learn from the mistakes of the characters, I said that children learn from the mistakes of the quality of the cartoons. Not once in ANY of my speeches for this debate did I mention the characters, or even use the word ‘characters' [1]! If my opponent misunderstood my argument, what else do you think he misunderstood?"
The word "characters" is implied. After all, they are the actions of the CHARACTERSthat children will either avoid or follow. As Randall Munroe of XKCD puts it bluntly, "communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness." [1]

"My opponent has stated several articles that prove that violent cartoons do, in fact, affect children's minds. But audience; do they apply to children 11 and over? Honestly, these statistics may affect the way a 5 year old thinks about violence, but most 11 year olds?"
Sure, the first source [2] focused on preschool-age children, but the third [3] did not focus on any age in particular, and the second [4] focused on two young men who played the violent video game Doom, of ages EIGHTEEN and SEVENTEEN. An article by CNN focuses on a study conducted on students 9 to 15, all of which showed increased aggression. [4] This is enough to make it clear that violent visuals do affect children's minds.

"'Russia, a country in which thousands of people die of domestic violence, has banned Happy Tree Friends for its brutality and violence.' So? The rest of the world hasn't."
Perhaps Russia is first. The northwestern United States abolished slavery before the rest of the country did. Just because one country took the first step does not mean that rest of the world cannot feel the same.

" Fast food is not Happy Tree Friends. Following my opponent's method of analogy, I could compare drinking to eating, since both are good in some ways, and bad in others. So yeah. Still following my opponent's method, I can hereby supply the facts that since I can...well...drink drinks, I can drink food, too! Yeah, that's right. Because they're both similar, anything that applies to one applies to the other. Nope. That's not the way analogies work. Yes, both fast food and Happy Tree Friends have their Pros and Cons, but the analogy is irrelevant, the source is irrelevant, the idea is irrelevant."
My opponent still does not appear to understand. The analogy has fulfilled its purpose, and only that, which was to compare two correlating pairs of facts. That is, "fast food makes people happy" with "HTF makes people happy" and "fast food makes people unhealthy" with "HTF makes people aggressive". I am not comparing two facts and making wild extrapolations. I am TYING TWO PAIRS OF FACTS TOGETHER. As the analogy has served its purpose, all points of irrelevancy are irrelevant.

"Clearly, she didn't read the sentence, 'While it's not likely that children will act so extremely, such hostile, violent behavior will still be embedded in children's minds [7].'" Did I insinuate that children are going to mimic what they see on screen? Or did I insinuate that what they see they will remember, but it will not affect them negatively? If my opponent is leaping to conclusions, what other conclusions do you think he's leapt to?"
I am male, and am basing my point off of her rhetoric question, "what kind of kid is going to get crazy and start murdering everyone with a cake-slicer like that?" That's an example of mimicking what's on the screen. So is doing something "like that".

"'What not to do. There are many things that one should not do. However, children will not learn from the Happy Tree Friends characters' mistakes. Why? Because children see them as role models.' Children of what age? 2? The ones that shouldn't be watching, and don't?"
Anyone, of any age, can have a role model. Did I not mention the Simpsons as one of the cartoons whose characters people see as role models? Children between 12 and 17 make up a large number of viewers of the Simpsons, not two-year-olds.

"Any book, television show, movie, business, company, etc. will generate revenue for its employees. Audience, right now we are in an economic crisis, and we need jobs and money to be put out there for those who need it [5]. You and I both know that "Happy Tree Friends" falls into those categories. Whether the episodes are good or not, "Happy Tree Friends" does its share to help the economy like every other product out there." This, indeed, is true. And while my opponent may say it does not affect the children, do not most people have children to take care of, children who need to be supported?"
Mondo Media, the company behind Happy Tree Friends, is estimated to earn "an annual revenue of $500,000 to $1 million." It "employs a staff of approximately 5 to 9." So Mondo Media doesn't directly provide a whole lot of jobs, and doesn't earn a whole lot for a company. Sure, it indirectly provides money and jobs for children all across the world, but is it really very much? This is a negligible gain compared the the many potential losses that can be caused by Happy Tree Friends. I have refuted every point and refutation of my opponent. Thank you, Qynze, the audience, and everybody else.

[1] http://xkcd.com...
[2] http://dailyuw.com...
[3] http://www.aacap.org...
[4] http://www.trutv.com...
[5] http://articles.cnn.com...
[6] http://www.museum.tv...
[7] http://www.econlib.org...
[8] http://articles.sfgate.com...
[9] http://www.manta.com...
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Fuchsiania 6 years ago
Fuchsiania
HA! Tied!
Posted by Qynze 6 years ago
Qynze
"As shown in the first part of this debate, even my opponent is not taking this seriously, debate."

Fail.

Watched the superbowl?
Posted by Qynze 6 years ago
Qynze
Crap. One of my sentences is disjointed...lmao

guess thats what happens when i write stuff late at night -_-
Posted by Qynze 6 years ago
Qynze
Oops. 0_o

I'm quite preoccupied. Sorry I missed my deadline. -_-
No votes have been placed for this debate.