Happy Tree Friends is a good influence on children.
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
I thank my opponent for joining me in this what I know is likely to be EXTREMELY entertaining debate. By initiating this debate, I expect that he will bind himself by the general rules of conduct and that he have a good sense of humor and is not in any way offended by my words, unless they directly insult him (which would, by the way, also be a violation of the rules of conduct on my part). On my honor, I swear I will uphold these rules for this debate or else be dishonored.
I begin by quoting the Christian Bible: "For ye are all the children of God..." - Galatians 3:26 . "We are all children of the same universe" . Therefore, I choose to interpret this motion as "Happy Tree Friends is a Good Influence on Everyone", because it is implied that "we" is humanity in general. I would appreciate if my opponent supplied sources and arguments in his next post.
I will begin my arguments after my opponent presents his.
If my opponent insists, then I will comply:
Audience, I'd like to make it clear that I AM NOT DEBATING THAT "HAPPY TREE FRIENDS" IS A GOOD SHOW. I'm debating that its influence on the world is, overall, good.
Allow me to define "Happy Tree Friends": "A flash cartoon...[that is] not recommended for children under 10. Despite its childish appearance, the show is extremely violent, featuring blood, pain, and gruesome deaths. The portrayal of death in "Happy Tree Friends" is usually graphic and exaggerated, depicting bloodshed and dismemberment in a vivid manner ."
1) 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 . 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.
2) 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 .
3) WHAT NOT TO DO - We learn from mistakes - but not just our mistakes . 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.
Audience, "Happy Tree Friends" may not be a good show - but it does have a good impact on society. In other words, it defines "stupid" for the world.
Thank you, and please vote Pro!
I, as the con, and the initiator of this debate, would like to establish the motion as "Happy Tree Friends is a good influence on children", with children meaning children, people of youth, youth meaning the early period of existence, growth, or development.  Sure, the Christian Bible states that "we are all children of the same universe", but individual words can be and are used liberally; therefore, such words need not be taken literally, word for word. Even if one were to take such a word literally, "child" has multiple meanings — "a son or daughter of human parents", for example — according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. The "children"s in Galations 3:26 and the motion are not necessarily the same.
Now that I've that out of the way, I'd like to move on to my main speech. I have two topics to emphasize: role models and desensitization.
I'll begin with role models. Children see Happy Tree Friends characters as role models, not as characters that children learn from the mistakes of, as my opponent stated. Children generally like cute, cuddly characters. This is depicted by such characters as those in Tellytubbies, Barney, and Sesame Street, to name a few. Children, having warmed up to similarly-looking characters, will follow the actions of the animals in Happy Tree Friends. This includes injuring others intentionally . While it's not likely that children will act so extremely, such hostile, violent behavior will still be embedded in children's minds. Does that sound like a good influence?
Moving on to desensitization. During early childhood, children are often taught not to harm others. Because of this, children view physical harm as horrifying. Happy Tree Friends, with its gratuitous depictions of physical harm, helps to relieve children of this fear. One could say that Happy Tree Friends, over time, could make violence second nature to children. That's not a good influence. My opponent stated that the cartoon brings about laughter, and that laughter is healthy. Think of fast food. Many people like fast food. So, fast food makes such people happier, in turn making them healthier. But, wait! Fast food isn't known to make people healthier! Hmm, what's wrong? Sure, there are short-term, surface benefits, but the long-term effects are not good. Children will lose their fear, their barrier to violence, thanks to Happy Tree Friends.
Happy Tree Friends is shaping children's minds for violence. Regardless if they commit violent acts or not, the notion and the ease toward violence will be embedded in their minds. If you want violent children powering our future, please vote for the proposition of the motion, but if you want children who avoid violence to run the world peacefully, please vote for the con. Thank you audience, thank you person-with-the-initials-AA, and thank you, opponent, and have a good night.
 Happy Tree Friends Wiki - http://happytreefriends.wikia.com...
 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
 "Party Animal - Part 2" - http://youtube.com...
I thank my opponent for the reply.
My opponent stated an alternate definition of “children”. I could refute this in saying the interpretation of the subject greatly varies. Many see God as the ultimate creator, the parent of all. Also, using his own words against him, my opponent’s definition and that of the motion are not necessarily the same. Myself being an Atheist, however, I shall accept my opponent’s interpretation, which, as he says, is “a son or daughter of human parents” and “children meaning children, people of youth, youth meaning the early period of existence, growth, or development”. I ask that should I ever debate my opponent again, he supply the definition before any arguments so that I do not waste my time. Since my opponent does not supply a specific age range that “child” or “youth” refers to, I choose to interpret those terms legally - in the U.S., a person is considered a child until they reach the age of 18 .
Now for my refutations.
My opponent says that children see these cartoons as role models. This, in itself, is a ridiculous notion. First of all, children of 10 years and under are not supposed to be watching “Happy Tree Friends”. That leaves a span of 11-18 year olds who may watch this (remember, children only). Now who, audience, has ever heard of an 11-18 year old who looks up to a cartoon like “Happy Tree Friends”? I mean, lots of little kiddies watch Spongebob and I honestly don’t think I see any kids walking around, acting like a mini Spongebob or something . To prove my opponent’s point even more ridiculous, how many 11-18ers watch the shows fuchsiania has stated, “Tellytubbies, Barney, and Sesame Street”? Also? Get real. What kind of kid is going to get crazy and start murdering everyone with a cake-slicer like that? My opponent stated a source for the fact that the videos are violent, which we’ve already established, but not for the fact that kids will see them as role models. My source? The world around us, today.
I believe my opponent’s second contention to be a sadly mislead philosophy. I will start by correcting the inaccurate metaphor in which he supplied. Fuchsiania has said: “Think of fast food. Many people like fast food. So, fast food makes such people happier, in turn making them healthier. But, wait! Fast food isn't known to make people healthier! Hmm, what's wrong? Sure, there are short-term, surface benefits, but the long-term effects are not good.” So let’s break this metaphor down. “Think of fast food. Many people like fast food.” Sourceless, but true. Take Koopin, for example. Loves KFC. “So, fast food makes such people happier, in turn making them healthier.” Yes, an appropriate metaphor would be that fast food makes people happier, and the happiness is what makes them healthier. Then my opponent goes on to say, “But wait! Fast food isn’t known to make people healthier!” Whoa, hold your horses, Fuchsiania! Did I say fast food makes people healthier? No, I said that happiness makes people healthier! But indeed, the happiness may be generated by the fast food. And there are cons, as my opponent goes on to say, all of which by the end of my speech I will have refuted, thus revealing there are no true cons. Even so, somehow, the conclusion is wrong. “Children will lose their fear, their barrier to violence, thanks to Happy Tree Friends.” One moment.
(Qynze pauses from speech, goes backstage. Next, something is heard:
Back to my speech. Because of a cartoon, children will lose their fear? Because of a cartoon? No way! Will they lose their barrier to violence? Nope. Didn’t think so. Audience, something’s obviously wrong with this point. Even better? NO SOURCE! What is it with sources and people these days?! My source? Once again, reality itself backs me with truth.
In accepting my opponent’s definition of “children”, my first point is refuted. However, my next two points have been left standing:
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 .
WHAT NOT TO DO - We learn from mistakes - but not just our mistakes . 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.
Audience, I have refuted ALL of my opponent’s points. Voting for my side, Pro, does not mean you like “Happy Tree Friends”. So don’t be afraid to show you’re true colours! Vote for the Proposition! Thanks, all, for a good debate. I can’t wait for the next round.
Fuchsiania forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.