The Instigator
gerrandesquire
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
petersaysstuff
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

In a democracy, government should not try to censor/edit/restrict the Tv content...

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 4 votes the winner is...
petersaysstuff
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,957 times Debate No: 15551
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

gerrandesquire

Pro

In the first round, we just state our positions. And state definitions and sort. We begin the actual debate from the second round.

Democracy:
1.Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2.A political or social unit that has such a government.
3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power;Majority rule.
4.The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

My position is that the government should not try to regulate any of the television content if it respects the essence of democracy.

Looking forward to the debate.
petersaysstuff

Con

First off I would like to thank my opponent for this chance to debate.

I accept my opponent's definition of democracy except for one part. Part 3 is in, somewhat, contradiction with part 1. If we have representatives such as the electoral college, a president can loose the popular vote whilst winning the electoral vote thus it is not majority rule. But if this doesn't become an issue in the round it doesn't matter.

I would like to define censor which is thusly: "To examine and expurgate."[1]
edit: "To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable"[2]
restrict: "To keep or confine within limits"[3]

I first have a question on my opponent's position. What do you mean by " if it respects the essence of democracy"?

My position is that the government should be allowed to regulate or censor material if it is a threat to our national security or the lives of our troops and/or civilians.

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
gerrandesquire

Pro

/"I accept my opponent's definition of democracy except for one part. Part 3 is in, somewhat, contradiction with part 1. If we have representatives such as the electoral college, a president can loose the popular vote whilst winning the electoral vote thus it is not majority rule. But if this doesn't become an issue in the round it doesn't matter."/

It doesn't exactly matter, but democracy was meant in it crude form, by the people for the people.

/"I would like to define censor which is thusly: "To examine and expurgate."[1]
edit: "To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable"[2]
restrict: "To keep or confine within limits"[3]"/

Accepted.

/"I first have a question on my opponent's position. What do you mean by " if it respects the essence of democracy"?"/

Essence of democracy is that the people are the source of political power. That the government in power is in power because it has been elected by the people.

/"My position is that the government should be allowed to regulate or censor material if it is a threat to our national security or the lives of our troops and/or civilians."/

Please elaborate.

My proposition:

#1

When a government tries to regulate Television programs it deems unsuitable to be watched by the masses, basically it gives the following message: You are old enough to decide who should run your country, but not old enough to decide what to watch on television.

And no, that's not enough, it further adds, I'M better than you ignorant people, let me make the decisions for you. Let me decide what you *should* watch.

If I don't like a program, if it interferes with my social beliefs or faith or whatever, I am the master of my remote. One cannot expect a bill by government to restrict the right to choice of the very people that elected it.

#2

A government has been put into place to run the country. Regulating the television content is in no way its jurisdiction. If it tries to censor the say of some, for whatever reason, it is, curtailing the right to speech of some individual, which is not its job.

A producer/ or any citizen of a country for that matter should be able to express his/ her views on the television, it is entirely upto the *public* whether they want to watch it or not. Censoring/ editing/ restricting the views of any proportion of the society is in direct contradiction of the right to freedom of speech, which is a fundamental right in a democracy.

Not writing too much in the beginning of the debate, I'll expand later.
petersaysstuff

Con

A threat to our national security would be revealing troop positions, weaknesses that could lead to attacks on us, plans for building bombs, ect. Do I really need to give you a full list?

//Refutations\
//When a government tries to regulate Television programs it deems unsuitable to be watched by the masses, basically it gives the following message: You are old enough to decide who should run your country, but not old enough to decide what to watch on television.//

All you are doing here is saying how you feel. You feel that the government is deeming us too young to decided what to watch yet your own opinion doesn't hold much water. I could say that "It is the government showing they care". Now it is just your word against mine. Nothing more, nothing less and there is no reason to vote on this.

How does it say "I'm better than you ignorant people..."? Again it is you saying X whereas I say Y. We are at a stalemate.

//A government has been put into place to run the country. Regulating the television content is in no way its jurisdiction. If it tries to censor the say of some, for whatever reason, it is, curtailing the right to speech of some individual, which is not its job.//

The government's job is to protect the people and if the information that is being shared is dangerous in anyway it IS inside the government's jurisdiction to censor media. (I will touch on this later)

//A producer/ or any citizen of a country for that matter should be able to express his/ her views on the television, it is entirely upto the *public* whether they want to watch it or not. Censoring/ editing/ restricting the views of any proportion of the society is in direct contradiction of the right to freedom of speech, which is a fundamental right in a democracy.//

What of network television? They censor what is on TV. They decided which shows will be aired and which will not. That is a form of censorship yet you, being so for freedom of speech, have no outrage over that. That sounds somewhat hypocritical to me.

So here we see that my opponent provides no impact to censorship as well as just stating what he feels. No of this even stands up to the lowest form of scrutiny and thus we must leave it behind.

//Arguments\
There are numerous reasons why the censor ship of TV is good. First off, let's say you have a 5 year old kid who is watching Saturday morning cartoons and then a commercial for a Fleshlight comes on. The commercial entails two people engaging in pornographic activities. You would not be opposed to the TV stations or even the government saying that is unacceptable and getting it removed. Nextly, what of child porn? Child porn is entirely banned yet you are (most likely) not opposed to that. So here you have a choice. You can concede that censorship is good which would mean that censoring child porn is good OR you could say censorship is bad (which is your argument) and thus censoring child porn is bad. It's your choice here.

Thirdly, what if we just allowed the full blue prints for nuclear bombs to float around? Terrorists might get their hands on them and thus be able to build a nuclear bomb. And what is the impact of a nuclear terrorist attack? Extinction. [1]

Fourthly, with out any form of censorship troop positions are liable to be revealed and with revealed troop positions comes loss of life. It is unacceptable to all our soldiers to die because the government could not keep their position safe. Here is where we see that censorship does fall within the duties of the government. The government's job is to protect the citizens of it's country but if it cannot censor troop positions or other information of that nature, it will not be protecting it's citizens.

Fifthly, making some things illegal to say is beneficial to our society. For example, it is illegal to say FIRE in a crowded area because it causes a panic and loss of life ensues. This is a form of restriction yet it benefits our society and this, even if you disagree with everything else, is enough to vote Con.

//Overview\
I have shown that censorship is good because
a) it prevents our children from seeing sexually explicit commercials on TV
b) it limits or eliminates the abuse of children in child porn
c) it helps prevent terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear blue prints
d) it protects the lives of troops
e) it limits what can be said as to protect the lives of civilians.
First off what must be said is that all of these would fit into my opponent's framework of "respecting the essence of democracy" because they aren't proposing any other form of government.
Nextly, what my opponent must do to win is to either a) show that all of these examples are unimportant or b) protecting our children from sexually explicit commercials is bad, limiting or eliminating the abuse of children is bad, preventing terrorism is bad, protecting troops is bad and protecting citizens lives is bad.

I await my opponent's response.

[1] http://www.the3nr.com...
Debate Round No. 2
gerrandesquire

Pro

//Refutations
//"All you are doing here is saying how you feel. You feel that the government is deeming us too young to decided what to watch yet your own opinion doesn't hold much water. I could say that "It is the government showing they care". Now it is just your word against mine."//

Let me elaborate. The basic principle of a democratic form of government is this:
*Everyone has some basic rights that the state cannot take away. *
"…In a democracy, every citizen has certain basic rights that the state cannot take away from them. These rights are internationally recognized and guaranteed…Everyone has the right to seek different sources of information and ideas. .. (http://www.stanford.edu...)
Now, the government elected by the country population has a Duty, to ensure smooth running of the country. It has NOT been put into place to care. A person will accept it if his/her mother tells him/her not to watch big brother (suppose), because it is her duty as a mother. But the government cannot *ban* big brother, because it is OUTSIDE its jurisdiction.

//" Nothing more, nothing less and there is no reason to vote on this."//
I would really appreciate it if you let voters decide that.

//"How does it say "I'm better than you ignorant people..."?"//
By monitoring the content displayed on the television, it is taking away the remote from our hands. What else is it saying?

//That is a form of censorship yet you, being so for freedom of speech, have no outrage over that. That sounds somewhat hypocritical to me.//

Why would you automatically assume I'm up for censorship? "Censorship is nothing but a tool for people with no life of their own to try and exercise control over others, just because they don't have control over their own." This is my view on censorship, and from no angle does it even seem that I am not against censorship. I honestly don't know where this came from; just try to refrain from all this, it can cost you points. Just saying.

//"No of this even stands up to the lowest form of scrutiny and thus we must leave it behind."//

Pass.

"There are numerous reasons why the censor ship of TV is good. First off, let's say you have a 5 year old kid who is watching Saturday morning cartoons and then a commercial for a Fleshlight comes on. The commercial entails two people engaging in pornographic activities. You would not be opposed to the TV stations or even the government saying that is unacceptable and getting it removed. Nextly, what of child porn? Child porn is entirely banned yet you are (most likely) not opposed to that. So here you have a choice. You can concede that censorship is good which would mean that censoring child porn is good OR you could say censorship is bad (which is your argument) and thus censoring child porn is bad. It's your choice here."

I ask this in all seriousness- What the hell?

Child porn is banned because it is wrong. The same way rape, murder, and all the other things are illegal. It is IMMORAL. And ILLEGAL. Showing it on television is a proof that it happened, and the perpetrators are liable to be arrested. This has nothing to do with censorship, the very fact that it happened is wrong. So my answer to your *choice* is that, *censoring* child porn is not bad, *child porn* is bad.

And for the first commercial point, the 5 year old child is not "old enough to decide who should run the country" which forms the chunk of my argument. The government can ensure the timings of the advertisement should not coincide with the cartoon time. The child is not mature enough and is a sponge and everything. But I am against it if government decides to *stop* the commercial entirely. Because people should have the right to change the channel if the commercial comes, or to watch it lustily, as they please.

//"Thirdly, what if we just allowed the full blue prints for nuclear bombs to float around? Terrorists might get their hands on them and thus be able to build a nuclear bomb. And what is the impact of a nuclear terrorist attack? Extinction. [1]"//

Do you really think terrorists would not be able to lay their hands on blue prints of nuclear bombs if they wish to?
(http://tabacco.blog-city.com...)
Blue prints for a atomic bomb on this site. I know it says that it is for *academic purpose only*, but somehow I don't think terrorists will pay heed to this.

Also:2) http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Nuclear bomb blueprints for sale on world black market.

3) http://www.guardian.co.uk...
… Blueprints for a sophisticated and compact nuclear warhead have been found in the computers of the world's most notorious nuclear-smuggling racket, according to a leading US researcher….

4) http://www.nuclearmuseum.org...
… Set of 5 individual blueprints of atomic weapons. These were copied from the original government drawings on to bright white paper, and are bound for you in a "contractor's pack." Each page measures 16" X 22". Included are dimensional drawings of Fat Man (2), Little Boy (1), and the Mark IV Missile (2).
$15.00 …

And finally, 5) http://www.independent.co.uk...
…Libya received the blueprint for a nuclear bomb electronically….

This points out that terrorists will get the full blueprint of nuclear weapons quite easily without any extra help from the televisions, if I could get an idea about where to find them within 5 minutes of search.
Secondly, on this point, I do not think that television would, in fact, hold any programs on the blueprint for nuclear weapons, because channels are guided by the forces of TRPs, and long mathematical , chemical, and discussions related to physics, on the measurement and building of a nuclear weapon, would find interested people. Or enough interested people to push up the TRPs.

//Fourthly, with out any form of censorship troop positions are liable to be revealed and with revealed troop positions comes loss of life. It is unacceptable to all our soldiers to die because the government could not keep their position safe. Here is where we see that censorship does fall within the duties of the government. The government's job is to protect the citizens of it's country but if it cannot censor troop positions or other information of that nature, it will not be protecting it's citizens.//

First of all, troop positions would be revealed IF the media people are allowed to walk into the ‘war zone',which should anyway not be done by the government if it is so intent on saving the lives of the people. OR other case might be when the media people question the collegues of troops employed, who can of course be arrested on charges of endangering the lives of people, and revealing confidential information, so they wouldn't be willing to disclose it, would they?
The government wouldn't need to censor the material if it closes the loopholes.

//Fifthly, making some things illegal to say is beneficial to our society. For example, it is illegal to say FIRE in a crowded area because it causes a panic and loss of life ensues. This is a form of restriction yet it benefits our society and this, even if you disagree with everything else, is enough to vote Con.//

Oh God. I had to read this point 5 times to understand its relevance to the debate, and I still don't get it. Nowhere have I said that making things illegal is wrong. It IS the job of government to ensure smooth running of the country, and public safety. What has this to do with censorship? I'm sure people would vote Con for this one. (note: sarcasm)

//Nextly,...//

*Also, nextly isn't a word.
Arguments:
In addition to my previous two points, I'd like to add this one.
3) If the government is allowed to censor television content, it would undoubtedly try to censor the reports that show it in a bad light, like failed schemes, corruption charges, and reports that reveal its shortcomings. This will directly contradict the main advantage of a democracy which states that people have the power to oppose the present government and force it to work efficienly. Because if you restrict the freedom of media, you stop the free information flow to the people, which will of course undermine democracy.
petersaysstuff

Con

First off I will touch on the word "nextly". My opponent claims it it not a word yet he has failed to do even the slightest bit of research. Nextly is defined as " Immediately following in time or order; "next in line"; "the next president"; "the next item on the list""[1]

On 1) First off you failed to provided any examples of rights that cannot be taken away as well as ignoring the fact that the government's job is to protect the people and if information is released that is dangerous it IS inside the government's duty to censor it. Thusly, this must be extended. Also, it still is your word against mine, you provided a link to Stanford as well as saying that we have rights that cannot be taken away has not proved your argument that we are "too young". (And caring can mean protecting the citizens which, as I have already shown, is inside the government's jurisdiction.) So it still is your word against mine.

////" Nothing more, nothing less and there is no reason to vote on this."//
I would really appreciate it if you let voters decide that.//

I am providing a voting issue....

////"How does it say "I'm better than you ignorant people..."?"//
By monitoring the content displayed on the television, it is taking away the remote from our hands. What else is it saying?//

hmmmmm it could still be saying that we care about your safety, that this is detrimental, that this is dangerous ect.. you have proved nothing here.

//That is a form of censorship yet you, being so for freedom of speech, have no outrage over that. That sounds somewhat hypocritical to me.//

\\Why would you automatically assume I'm up for censorship? "Censorship is nothing but a tool for people with no life of their own to try and exercise control over others, just because they don't have control over their own." This is my view on censorship, and from no angle does it even seem that I am not against censorship. I honestly don't know where this came from; just try to refrain from all this, it can cost you points. Just saying.\
I never said you were "up for censorship" I was merely saying that you encounter censorship everyday yet you, most likely, don't go crazy about it. How can it cost me points to a) analyze how you would respond to other situations of censorship and b) make an argument around them? You saying that makes it seem that you don't want to argue about it... :)

Here we get to the fun part.

//Defending\
On my 1:
"I ask this in all seriousness- What the hell?"
Kudos, you can ask a question.

"Child porn is banned because it is wrong. The same way rape, murder, and all the other things are illegal. It is IMMORAL. And ILLEGAL. Showing it on television is a proof that it happened, and the perpetrators are liable to be arrested. This has nothing to do with censorship, the very fact that it happened is wrong. So my answer to your *choice* is that, *censoring* child porn is not bad, *child porn* is bad."

It has everything to do with censorship. If you look to my definition of censor and restrict, which you accepted, expurgate means to remove thus we are removing child porn from TV and in that respect it is in the resolution AND we are confining what is legal in porn by not allowing footage of minors to be made or distributed and thus it fits in the resolution there as well. So your argument that it doesn't fit makes no sense at all.

"So my answer to your *choice* is that, *censoring* child porn is not bad, *child porn* is bad."
So the actual censoring of it is fine? That contradicts your argument that censorship is bad. How can you say that censorship is bad and then, in the next round, say it isn't?

"The government can ensure the timings of the advertisement should not coincide with the cartoon time. "

The problem with this is that it falls exactly in the definition of restrict which is to confine or keep within limits. In essence what my opponent just said is that it is okay for the government to not allow the commercial to be played at X time which is confining it as well as keeping it within limits. So my opponent just said that it is ok for the government to restrict a commercial thus going against his advocacy.

On my 3: I'm kicking it. My opponent has no offense, just defense and seeing as I'm neg I will kick it.
On my 4: There are other ways to get troop positions other than physically going to the base. If people were to get troop positions then censorship would be necessary.
"so they wouldn't be willing to disclose it, would they?" we have no way of knowing for certain. So the argument about them not even disclosing it has absolutely no warrants and thus my argument still stands.
On my 5: "Oh God. I had to read this point 5 times to understand its relevance to the debate, and I still don't get it. Nowhere have I said that making things illegal is wrong. It IS the job of government to ensure smooth running of the country, and public safety. What has this to do with censorship? I'm sure people would vote Con for this one. (note: sarcasm)"

Congratulations on not being able to understand a simply argument about why restricting liberties is beneficial. It is true that you didn't say making things illegal is wrong but you previously said that the government can't take away our rights which is what it is doing here. It is taking away our freedom of speech which is saving peoples lives thus showing that your argument that the government can't take away rights doesn't work. Here you have conceded that this form of censorship is good for public safety. I'm sorry if you cannot understand a basic argument but that is not my fault. (You probably should use sarcasm, it can cost you points.)(See what I did there? I took your saying from earlier...)

Nextly is a word see above^^. I suggest you do research before you spew false information.

// If the government is allowed to censor television content, it would undoubtedly try to censor the reports that show it in a bad light, like failed schemes, corruption charges, and reports that reveal its shortcomings. This will directly contradict the main advantage of a democracy which states that people have the power to oppose the present government and force it to work efficienly. Because if you restrict the freedom of media, you stop the free information flow to the people, which will of course undermine democracy.//

Here a few problems arise.
1) There are no warrants in this, he is just saying what the government will do which is making an assumption. (Keep in mind my opponent was so pissed at me for making an assumption) But even if we assume that they will censor other stuff, that isn't stopping people from opposing the government. It is just not showing the people everything. My opponent's argument here makes no sense. Just because not everything is shown doesn't mean that we can't still oppose the government. That last sentence is not true at all. Restrict is to keep with in limits, not stop. The flow of information is still available via other sources so the argument here doesn't work at all. Kudos on a bad contention.
Another thing, you shouldn't bring new contentions up late in the debate, you may loose points...

[1] http://www.websters-dictionary-online.net...
Debate Round No. 3
gerrandesquire

Pro

//On 1) First off you failed to provided any examples of rights that cannot be taken away as well as ignoring the fact that the government's job is to protect the people and if information is released that is dangerous it IS inside the government's duty to censor it.//

That's precisely what my entire entry explained. I gave you the whole link. Just read it, okay?

// Thusly, this must be extended. Also, it still is your word against mine, you provided a link to Stanford as well as saying that we have rights that cannot be taken away has not proved your argument that we are "too young". (And caring can mean protecting the citizens which, as I have already shown, is inside the government's jurisdiction.) So it still is your word against mine.//

My Stanford link was in reaction to your argument that stated that this was a battle of our *feelings*. Alas, I have shown that the argument was a fully objective argument, backed by sources. Reply to it.

//hmmmmm it could still be saying that we care about your safety, that this is detrimental, that this is dangerous ect.. you have proved nothing here.//

I thought I explained how it is *not* government's duty to care, and that was provided with the example, which I noticed you didn't refute. So, here we stand again.

//I never said you were "up for censorship" I was merely saying that you encounter censorship everyday yet you, most likely, don't go crazy about it. How can it cost me points to a) analyze how you would respond to other situations of censorship and b) make an argument around them? You saying that makes it seem that you don't want to argue about it... :)//

I do go crazy over it. I do not support censorship, and I think my previous response explains my feelings well. So you *analysed* wrong.

//It has everything to do with censorship. If you look to my definition of censor and restrict, which you accepted, expurgate means to remove thus we are removing child porn from TV and in that respect it is in the resolution AND we are confining what is legal in porn by not allowing footage of minors to be made or distributed and thus it fits in the resolution there as well. So your argument that it doesn't fit makes no sense at all.//
It has nothing to do with censorship. We are not removing child porn from television because it is sick for the eyes, Child porn is illegal. It does not call for censorship, it calls for arrest.

//So the actual censoring of it is fine? That contradicts your argument that censorship is bad. How can you say that censorship is bad and then, in the next round, say it isn't?//
*Censoring*- isn't fine. Don't twist my words to suit your objective.

//The problem with this is that it falls exactly in the definition of restrict which is to confine or keep within limits. In essence what my opponent just said is that it is okay for the government to not allow the commercial to be played at X time which is confining it as well as keeping it within limits. So my opponent just said that it is ok for the government to restrict a commercial thus going against his advocacy.//

It is all right for the government to *restrict* the commercial to be played during cartoon time, because children are not ‘mature enough to decide who should run the country'. This was my argument, and arguments like these do not ask for generalization. Either respond to the whole argument or accept your defeat.

// I'm kicking it. My opponent has no offense, just defense and seeing as I'm neg I will kick it.//

That was a good argument, and if you do not respond to a argument, it means you have nothing to say.

// There are other ways to get troop positions other than physically going to the base. If people were to get troop positions then censorship would be necessary.//

How would they get troop positions? Enlist the scenerios, and I can respond.

//Congratulations on not being able to understand a simply argument about why restricting liberties is beneficial. It is true that you didn't say making things illegal is wrong but you previously said that the government can't take away our rights which is what it is doing here. It is taking away our freedom of speech which is saving peoples lives thus showing that your argument that the government can't take away rights doesn't work. Here you have conceded that this form of censorship is good for public safety. I'm sorry if you cannot understand a basic argument but that is not my fault. (You probably should use sarcasm, it can cost you points.)(See what I did there? I took your saying from earlier...)//

I said government should not take away our fundamental rights. And I haven't conceded to anything. I have to say, this is a little irritating.

Listen, when a person shouts FIRE in the middle of a road, everyone HAS to listen, they have no choice. When a program on tv comes up, People CHOOSE whether they want to watch the program or not. They have a time to react, to understand the content, and then chose what they feel is the best possible alternative. Restricting omething on Tv is restricting information, which is basically- *not confusing the public with the truth*. Or trying to. Which means These are two different arguments.

//Nextly is a word see above^^. I suggest you do research before you spew false information.//

Okay, this was a mistake, I concede.

//1) There are no warrants in this, he is just saying what the government will do which is making an assumption. (Keep in mind my opponent was so pissed at me for making an assumption) But even if we assume that they will censor other stuff, that isn't stopping people from opposing the government. //

Making assumptions about me and making assumptions about the implications of some action are two very very different things. One is called presumption and the other is called analysing. It is pretty obvious what the government would do. The same is happening in China, who is monitoring all the information sources to control information exchange regarding the East world revolution.

http://www.nytimes.com...)
http://www.csmonitor.com...

…Few people in China have even heard about the Middle East upheavals that started with Tunisia's so-called Jasmine Revolution last month. But the authorities are taking no chances here, clamping down before major protests are able to take shape….

// It is just not showing the people everything. //

So if people don't know what the government is doing wrong, what would they get upset about? Let me explain it with a painfully close example. During Commonwealth games 2011 held in India, people here in India were angry about the sloppy way government was organizing the games. There were reactions with people all over the place, anger, marches, facebook updates, media reports that finally propelled the government to *work*.
http://naomicanton.blogspot.com...
http://www.lankanewspapers.com...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

So if we are informed about the mishaps, then only we can work towards it/protest.

//My opponent's argument here makes no sense.//

Really? I should have thought it was pretty clear. What didn't you understand?

//Just because not everything is shown doesn't mean that we can't still oppose the government.//

Whaa??? Are you serious?

// That last sentence is not true at all. Restrict is to keep with in limits, not stop. The flow of information is still available via other sources so the argument here doesn't work at all. Kudos on a bad contention.//

Of course. The bad actions, scams and corruption charges are stopped, and the news showing the government in positive light is highlighted. Information is restricted.
petersaysstuff

Con

The order will be refutations, and an overview.

//Refutations\On the Stanford link:
My opponent's original argument was "When a government tries to regulate Television programs it deems unsuitable to be watched by the masses, basically it gives the following message: You are old enough to decide who should run your country, but not old enough to decide what to watch on television."
To this I said that there is no evidence to back this claim up which is true. If you actually go to the Stanford link, the sections are Citizen's rights, Federalism, Seperation of Powers, Executive power, What is democracy, The global spread of Democracy, Participation, Rule of law and Due Process of law. Nowhere in there does it say anything about us being "too young". At the point where my opponent provides no evidence for that claim it becomes his word vs mine.
The first section on here is the only thing he talked about and even that is incorrect. It says that everyone ha rights that are respected everywhere such as the right to have their own beliefs and say/write what they think but this is just not true. Not everywhere is this recognized and in no way does it talk about his original argument about being "too young".

//I thought I explained how it is *not* government's duty to care, and that was provided with the example, which I noticed you didn't refute. So, here we stand again.//
It is the government's duty to care about your safety seeing as the government must protect it's citizens which I have proved numerous times and has gone unrefuted.

//It has nothing to do with censorship. We are not removing child porn from television because it is sick for the eyes, Child porn is illegal. It does not call for censorship, it calls for arrest.//
My definition of censor and restrict were agreed upon and as I explained, child porn does fit within those definitions. You have made no attempt to refute that, just say it's illegal. Under my definition of censor, making something illegal is still topical and thus my child porn argument stands.

//*Censoring*- isn't fine. Don't twist my words to suit your objective.//
You said right here "*censoring* child porn is not bad, *child porn* is bad" thus showing that censoring it is not bad. You wrote this in your speech!

//It is all right for the government to *restrict* the commercial to be played during cartoon time, because children are not ‘mature enough to decide who should run the country'. This was my argument, and arguments like these do not ask for generalization. Either respond to the whole argument or accept your defeat.//
What? The resolution says that "In a democracy, government should not try to censor/edit/restrict the Tv content..." yet here you said that it is all right for the government to restrict the commercial. This is contradictory to your advocation.
About "not ‘mature enough to decide who should run the country'" Where does this fit? I'm not arguing that kids should be able to run the country.

//That was a good argument, and if you do not respond to a argument, it means you have nothing to say.//
I kicked it because it didn't work and you proved that my assumption was incorrect. My argument about bomb plans does not work and I admit that.

//How would they get troop positions? Enlist the scenerios, and I can respond.//
Ok, 1)Go to a place that houses the military computer server and get the info there.
2)Go to a headquatars that is not at the battlefield.
Do I need to provide more examples? You have not refuted this at all. Troop positions are planed out before an invasion takes place. You assuming that the only way to know where they are is by going to the front lines is just false.

//I said government should not take away our fundamental rights. And I haven't conceded to anything. I have to say, this is a little irritating.//
I have shown that censoring our right to say certain things saves lives and you never negated this. Also this directly contradicts your Stanford link which says that the rights are honored everywhere which is not true.
I'm sorry if I irritated you but I was responding to your OH MY GOD! argument.

//Listen, when a person shouts FIRE in the middle of a road, everyone HAS to listen, they have no choice. When a program on tv comes up, People CHOOSE whether they want to watch the program or not. They have a time to react, to understand the content, and then chose what they feel is the best possible alternative. Restricting omething on Tv is restricting information, which is basically- *not confusing the public with the truth*. Or trying to. Which means These are two different arguments.//
Fair enough. You have disproven this.

//Making assumptions about me and making assumptions about the implications of some action are two very very different things. One is called presumption and the other is called analysing. It is pretty obvious what the government would do. The same is happening in China, who is monitoring all the information sources to control information exchange regarding the East world revolution.//
I am aware that they are two different things but they are both assumptions.
It's pretty obvious? Just saying that proves nothing. I could say it's pretty obvious they wont.
And the comparison to China, the US and China are two entirely different countries. You are comparing apples and oranges. About the NYT and CSmon links, those are about China. I never said China wasn't censoring information, I said you have no evidence that the US will which is still true. Here it is, again, your word vs mine.

//So if people don't know what the government is doing wrong, what would they get upset about? Let me explain it with a painfully close example. During Commonwealth games 2011 held in India, people here in India were angry about the sloppy way government was organizing the games. There were reactions with people all over the place, anger, marches, facebook updates, media reports that finally propelled the government to *work*.//
Well the problem with the resolution is that you only talk about censoring TV. There are other ways to get information so even if we assume that the government will cover up everything on TV, the resolution takes no stand on the internet, newspapers, radio ect.. so the people can still hear about what the government is doing. Also, wrong is all subjective. Not everyone will think X action is wrong.

//Whaa??? Are you serious?//
Let's say I killed a women with a baby in her womb but you only knew I killed a women, not that she was pregnant. You could sill oppose me killing her even if you didn't know the whole truth. Your argument here does not work.

//Of course. The bad actions, scams and corruption charges are stopped, and the news showing the government in positive light is highlighted. Information is restricted.//
Only on TV. The resolution is talking about TV and thus you cannot make assumptions on what will happen with other outlets.

//Overview\My argument about explicit commercials for kids still stands seeing as my opponent said that the government has the right to restrict it which is contradicting his advocacy. My argument regarding child porn still stands seeing as, according to the definitions which my opponent accepted, illegality can still fit and child porn is censored. My third argument did not work and my opponent beat it. My fourth argument still stands and my opponent has done minimal work on it. My fifth argument still stands and my opponent seemed to not know what I was arguing. Conversely, my opponent's main argument that the government is deeming us "too young" has not been defended and most if not all of his arguments are either his word vs mine or have been proven wrong and thusly, I urge a Con ballot.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gerrandesquire 6 years ago
gerrandesquire
And also, why did I have terrible conduct?
Posted by gerrandesquire 6 years ago
gerrandesquire
Socialpinko: I didn't 'go back on my position'. My major refutation was that- If we are old enough to decide who should run our government, we should be old enough to decide what to watch on television. A 5 year old does not vote, and hence it does not falls into this category.
Posted by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
Wow detachment. Just wow, you provided no comments and voted me down (most likely) out of spite considering I beat you and voted you down.
Posted by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
How?
Posted by gerrandesquire 6 years ago
gerrandesquire
I don't think a wikileaks is possible in this scenerio.
Posted by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
The first and most obvious is Wikileaks. The US government tried to create a fool proof system yet that failed when Bradely Manning got the information.
Posted by gerrandesquire 6 years ago
gerrandesquire
This isn't an assumption. Its a proposal. A suggestion one might call. And when done correctly, it is pretty much failproof. When has it failed?
Posted by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
Isn't that a pretty big assumption to make? It's been tried yet it still fails. That assumption is taking a huge leap of faith.
Posted by gerrandesquire 6 years ago
gerrandesquire
1)Go to a place that houses the military computer server and get the info there.

2)Go to a headquatars that is not at the battlefield.

Government can still close the loopholes. Tight security around the places and kaboom, no need to censor. Simple.
Posted by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
I did anyways but it's all good. I didn't add them explicitly to the voting issues.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
gerrandesquirepetersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall great debate
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
gerrandesquirepetersaysstuffTied
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: It's well established that even within ademocracy there is no absolute right to free speech. It must be weighed against other rights, such as public safety. Con gave valid examples to illustrate the nature of conflict in rights, and how limited censorship is justified.
Vote Placed by detachment345 6 years ago
detachment345
gerrandesquirepetersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
gerrandesquirepetersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro's conduct was terrible. Plus pro went back on his position multiple times, conceding that sometimes the govt. has the right to censorship.