The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Has the media caused an egocentric approach to life?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 651 times Debate No: 92678
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I believe that the media is portraying younger generations as egocentric, even though not all teenagers are.


What I believe you are arguing is that the media has made a significant enough change to the audience to be egocentric?
Debate Round No. 1


Here are my points:

The media has played a role in portraying humans as selfish, publicising the selfishness of individuals and not focusing on the good

The generation gap between old and young generations isn"t as wide as the Media shows


Ok well if that"s what you"re arguing then i"m assuming you meant to click say you are pro. But anyways. This resolution of course is not saying that there is no such portrayal in the media, but if there is enough to say that it is significant enough to change the minds of individuals to be egocentric. The resolution is if the media has caused the populace to live egocentrically, and to that my opponent has the burden of proof because he is trying to prove that something, being the change of minds in individuals, exists and is done so by the media. Now, even if the media portrays all the egocentricness possible, that does not necessarily mean that it has the changed the minds of people to live such a way. Also, if you are saying that the media doesn't focus on the good then you must know how much of good is shown and how much of the bad, and I would like to see that evidence. Again, the burden of proof lies with you and I don't have much of a case to argue against.
Debate Round No. 2


Fair enough,

Here's another point of query that you might be interested in. Where is the line drawn between egocentrism and bolstering one's self-esteem? Due to the media's portrayal of egocentrism parents have become nervous in thier parents
E.g. is dressing a little kid in clothes which say 'obey' or 'princess' will develop into egocentrism?
A school in America taught a bunch of preschoolers, a song, 'I am special I am special look at me!'
is this egocentrism in it's early developmental stages?


I wouldn"t say that dressing up children in those specific types of clothes are due to become egocentric because I don"t think when someone wears for example "obey" that they think of it as obey, but just something that looks good, at least that is what I thought. I don"t know where the line is drawn, but it shouldn"t matter because my opponent has not provided any arguments and my points still stand.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SJM 2 years ago
Well ok.....
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: bearski// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con does a poor job of defining the issue and because it is not well defined and properly limited in scope Con does a poor job of defending her position. Pro tries to define the topic in lieu of Con failing to do so and does a reasonably good job of it. And while Pro does not do a really good job of presenting its care it is still better than Con does.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess specific points made in the debate by both sides. Merely stating that the debate was poorly framed and how that affected the progression of the debate is not sufficient. If Pro's framing of the debate was a large part of the reason why they won the debate, it should be clear why, under that framing, they warranted the win. If merely setting up the debate better warrants the win, the voter needs to go into detail on why that is the case.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: parkerwill// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con was unable to provide any proof/evidence to backup his statements which subsequietly also prevented Con from making any sustainable arguments against Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess specific points made in the debate by both sides. Merely stating that one side didn't "backup his statements" and lacked "sustainable arguments" is not sufficient.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheWorldIsComplicated 2 years ago
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: I believe it was close on every aspect except the arguments. Pro provided more information and gave examples of why Con was wrong.