The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ProNoob
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Having just one TV channel is a good idea.

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 3 votes the winner is...
ProNoob
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,741 times Debate No: 30094
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

KingDebater

Pro

hello. no debate structure, put your arguments and rebuttals forward whenever you like. trololololololo
ProNoob

Con

Having a minimum of two TV shows creates motivation to compete for high quality viewing.

As has been seen in history, monopolies have no motivation to make anything of a good quality as they have nothing to compete with.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

okey dokeh i will be putting forward my arguments for only having one tv chnnel.

1 - no squabble over what to watch
2- it would be the best channel ever as it would have the best tv shows from each type of program
3- it'd be cool because you'd get people who'd be able to say that they had watched every episode of every tv show ever.

take that.
ProNoob

Con

My contention went uncontested.

I shall now rebut my opponent's contentions.

1 - No squabble over what to watch.

Instead of squabble over which channel to watch there'd be squabble over whether to buy a TV altogether or not.

The entire industry would be limited only to those who happen to like what's on the channel enough to buy one.

This would create a huge economic and social issue as some people who often go to the pub to watch football now can't because someone decided to put on a hot porno show which no one under the age of 18 is legally permitted to view.

2- It would be the best channel ever as it would have the best tv shows from each type of program.

This is false. Firstly, since it's the only channel it would also be the worst channel ever as there'd be no channel in existence worse than it so the 'best' theory fails. Without any other channels to compete with, there'd be absolutely no motivation to put good quality chows on. Additionally, it would be impossible to determine which shows are good because there'd be no competitive statistics (such as viewer population per channel) to determine the 'best one'.

3- It'd be cool because you'd get people who'd be able to say that they had watched every episode of every tv show ever.

Totally irrelevant. In a two-channel system, especially with people able to purchase box DVD sets, people could (if they really had no life) be able to say that they'd watched every episode of every tv show.
Debate Round No. 2
KingDebater

Pro

lets do a rebuttal

1 - No squabble over what to watch
'Instead of squabble over which channel to watch there'd be squabble over whether to buy a TV altogether or not'
no way jose. there'd be the best programs on it and so there wouldn't be more of that than there is now. some people are already choosing not to get a tv now.
' The entire industry would be limited only to those who happen to like what's on the channel enough to buy one.'
as i've said, there'd be the best shows from each category. cooking, cartoons top gear etc. haha you fail. everyone likes the best programs.
' This would create a huge economic and social issue as some people who often go to the pub to watch football now can't because someone decided to put on a hot porno show which no one under the age of 18 is legally permitted to view.'
i'm not sure where you got that idea from. there'd only be one thing on at each time. porno shows would be on when the kiddies have gone to bed.

2- It would be the best channel ever as it would have the best tv shows from each type of program.
'This is false. Firstly, since it's the only channel it would also be the worst channel ever as there'd be no channel in existence worse than it so the 'best' theory fails.'
i don't think you understand what i mean. it would be the best channel that'd ever existed. you know. not the best channel that would be on.
'Without any other channels to compete with, there'd be absolutely no motivation to put good quality chows on. Additionally, it would be impossible to determine which shows are good because there'd be no competitive statistics (such as viewer population per channel) to determine the 'best one'.'
there would be motivation because the tv people would know that the viewers could choose to go outside and do something like throw a frisbee or milk a duck, so they would make the shows entertaining. your whole argument falls.

3- It'd be cool because you'd get people who'd be able to say that they had watched every episode of every tv show ever.
'Totally irrelevant'
that's just a dumb baseless assertion.
'In a two-channel system, especially with people able to purchase box DVD sets, people could (if they really had no life) be able to say that they'd watched every episode of every tv show.'
yeah but the thing that's wrong with that is that with two channels, people wouldn't have the time to watch every episode of every tv show ever.

uhhhh this is like an essay
ProNoob

Con

1 - No squabble over what to watch
'Instead of squabble over which channel to watch there'd be squabble over whether to buy a TV altogether or not'
no way Jose. There'd be the best programs on it and so there wouldn't be more of that than there is now. Some people are already choosing not to get a tv now.


Some people choose to do so now but inevitably far more would do so if only one channel, to the mainstream only, was available.



'The entire industry would be limited only to those who happen to like what's on the channel enough to buy one.'
as I've said, there'd be the best shows from each category. Cooking, cartoons top gear etc. haha you fail. Everyone likes the best programs.


If everyone likes the best programs then why is it all channels currently get viewers? Oh that's right, because different people have a different opinion of what is 'best'.



' This would create a huge economic and social issue as some people who often go to the pub to watch football now can't because someone decided to put on a hot porno show which no one under the age of 18 is legally permitted to view.'
I'm not sure where you got that idea from. There'd only be one thing on at each time. Porno shows would be on when the kiddies have gone to bed.


How would you ensure that all around the world children were in bed? Thought so. Your system is impossible to legally implement.



2- It would be the best channel ever as it would have the best tv shows from each type of program.
'This is false. Firstly, since it's the only channel it would also be the worst channel ever as there'd be no channel in existence worse than it so the 'best' theory fails.'

I don't think you understand what I mean. It would be the best channel that'd ever existed. You know. Not the best channel that would be on.



'Without any other channels to compete with, there'd be absolutely no motivation to put good quality shows on. Additionally, it would be impossible to determine which shows are good because there'd be no competitive statistics (such as viewer population per channel) to determine the 'best one'.'

there would be motivation because the tv people would know that the viewers could choose to go outside and do something like throw a Frisbee or milk a duck, so they would make the shows entertaining. Your whole argument falls.


Invalid point didn't address my point at all. Conduct fallacy for insulting my argument saying "Your whole argument fails".

3- It'd be cool because you'd get people who'd be able to say that they had watched every episode of every tv show ever.
'Totally irrelevant'
that's just a dumb baseless assertion.


So is yours.



'In a two-channel system, especially with people able to purchase box DVD sets, people could (if they really had no life) be able to say that they'd watched every episode of every tv show.'
yeah but the thing that's wrong with that is that with two channels, people wouldn't have the time to watch every episode of every tv show ever.

You seem to think that people can spend 24/7 watching TV. Haha, no.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
how did you ever prove it?
Posted by ProNoob 4 years ago
ProNoob
Vote for con.
Posted by ProNoob 4 years ago
ProNoob
I did.
Posted by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
Vote for pro.
Posted by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
1 - No squabble over what to watch
'Instead of squabble over which channel to watch there'd be squabble over whether to buy a TV altogether or not'
'no way Jose. There'd be the best programs on it and so there wouldn't be more of that than there is now. Some people are already choosing not to get a tv now.'
'Some people choose to do so now but inevitably far more would do so if only one channel, to the mainstream only, was available.'
Prove it.
Posted by ProNoob 4 years ago
ProNoob
The argument you didn't address was my round one argument.
Posted by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
I think that Con is pretending that I haven't addressed any of his arguments, yet he doesn't point out what arguments these are.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
KingDebaterProNoobTied
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: Con had a good case, while pro failed to meet his Burden of Proof
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
KingDebaterProNoobTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: arguments, because pro failed to carry his burden of proof... con gave some good reasons for why pro's arguments were moot. and conduct, because of degrading language (e.g., "dumb baseless assertion") and general tone.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
KingDebaterProNoobTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't normally watch TV. But I see the benefit of having a myriad of channels to watch. On those rare occasions where I do watch TV, I often find myself scouring the channel listing for something decent to watch. With all this competition, this is the best they can do? How much worse would it be with no competition?