The Instigator
lord_megatron
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheRealJamesArq
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Indian movie censorboard

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 1 vote the winner is...
TheRealJamesArq
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2016 Category: Movies
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 350 times Debate No: 92862
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

lord_megatron

Con

Movie censorship in India is becoming too much. All the movies just have some bad language, or a bit of blood and gore, and they make it A-rated. Furthermore, they even cut out the foul language with a beep and still release it as A. There are only 3 ratings in India, U and UA which is for all, and A which is only for 18 plus no exceptions.
TheRealJamesArq

Pro

Good day!
My name is James, and today I will be in favor of the Indian movie censor board.

Despite not being Indian myself, I share their beliefs and understand the reasoning behind why it is they censor films.

This debate all boils down to one thing: morals, principles, and ethics. Because it is of a subjective nature, I would be forced to rephrase the motion into something that can be objective and provide a reasonable conclusion.

The motion of this debate would be that the censorship of films in India bring more good than harm.

Once again, good afternoon!

""""""

Movies and films have the power to influence young minds and motivate adults into action, therefore, as said in Spiderman "with great power, comes great responsibility"

(Spiderman, a movie which was available for viewing in India)

The thing is, when they censor out a couple of curse words and derogatory phrases, they are not taking anything out of a movie. The essence of the movie is still there, and can still be enjoyed.

Now, if the movie cannot be enjoyed without the curse words, maybe you should consider the movie you are watching.

It has been proven, time and time again, movies cause people into action.

Multiple murders and crimes have been attributed to the viewing of unnecessarily violent scenes and hearing of foul languages.
---> "Michael Hernandez identified with the movie serial killers and pursued a plan to become a serial killer himself. He stabbed friend Jaime Gough in a bathroom at Southwood Middle School. "
--->"In 2013, a teen claimed the 2007 version of "Halloween," directed by Rob Zombie, inspired him in the slaying of two members of his family. Evans killed his 48-year-old mother, Jamie Evans, and his 15-year-old sister, Mallory, inside their upscale Aledo, Texas home on October 3, 2012."

From these two case studies alone (aside from the countless others), we can establish that a movie can leave long term problems.

[SOURCES: http://moviepilot.com..., http://www.oddee.com..., http://listverse.com...]

Research has also been made regarding the exposure of people to inappropriate movies.
A research team has concluded "Overall, our estimates suggest that in the short-run violent movies deter almost 1,000 assaults on an average weekend."

[SOURCES: http://www.nber.org..., http://www.mountsinai.org..., http://www.telegraph.co.uk...]

""""""

In the end, if you could save one life, just one life, by not being able to watch a violent movie, will it be justified?

If you could save 10 children suffering from abuse, would you avoid watching obscene films?

If you could potentially save millions of lives, would you allow movies in India to be censored?

In the end, nothing outweighs lives, security, and safety. Not a petty curse word in a movie or an obscene act on film. Nothing trumps the lives saved.
Debate Round No. 1
lord_megatron

Con

I believe that those who get motivated to do murder by simple movies are fools and have a screw loose already.
Furthermore, foul language can sometimes help express the characters emotions better, and a beep is rather disturbing anyways.
I propose that Indian movie censor board should develop more ratings like other countries, such as under 13, under 16, under 18 etc. What we have right now is under 18 or above, no exceptions. It would do good to have a rating above 15 or above 13, as some movies are not designed for small children but they are not the best for adults either.
Imagine movies such as Dabang without curse words or action scenes. It is impossible, isn't it?
Udta Punjab recently got the A rated certificate despite the intention of promoting drug awareness among all ages.
Furthermore, if you argue about violent scenes promoting violence, talk about the avengers. Or batman, for that matter. They got the UA certificate despite a good amount of violence and action stunts. The censor board is biased.
Pro argues that we all are sponges and that whatever we see, we do. I argue that this only happens with dumb people or people who are already inclined to violence and abuse, and the movie can't be blamed for that. Now, your Michael Hernandez, did anyone ask him if he had the idea of murder before watching the movie? This could also be an attempt by other producers to attack the producer's reputation. If what we do what we watch, then all we need is a movie about studying. You are saying army men or gangsters in training can watch action movies and become more efficient? No surveys for that, eh?
TheRealJamesArq

Pro

Good day everyone!

The opposition has expressed the frustration many people seem to share. I myself have been victim to it. I have not been able to watch dead pool, to watch this movie or that movie. I missed out on the fun.

But look, I"m still here. Breathing and living out my life normally.

I may have missed out on a couple of fun scenes, but it spared me from the curses and profane sequences.

""""""""""""""""""

The opposition continues to bombard us with the remarks that all those influenced by movies are dumb, mentally unstable, and have something already wrong with them.

This is an extremely ludicrous assumption that is unfounded and unwarranted.

Unlike the opposition"s lack of evidence, I have presented case studies and research work explaining how movies do have a psychological impact in people"s minds.

To prove this point further, let"s have a simple exercise that anyone reading can join in on.

1.) Think of the most gory and violent movie that you have watched

2.) What scenes do you remember the most? Are they violent or profane?

If they are not violent or if you don"t remember anything, then it shows how you did not need to have watched it in the first place as you would have forgotten it anyways. This shows that even if you have not seen the movie, it won"t really impact your life. Congrats! You"ve helped me prove my point!

If you do remember something gory and violent, then yes, they are still part of your subconsciousness. They leave an impact in your life, and not for the better. Congrats! You"ve helped me prove my point!

""""""""""""""""""

Having a censor board in India is vital for the following reasons:
- it adds format and a guideline (You won"t expect curse words to find its way into children movies)
- it allows for punishment of violators (If Dora the Explorer suddenly showed a profane scene, the Indian board can press charges)
- it safeguards the nation (they allow their people to only see what"s best for them)

""""""""""""""""""

In the end, it"s really not difficult. We"ve proven that censoring movies saves lives, we"ve proven that censoring movies allows for safeguarding of the nation, we"ve proven censoring movies is vital.

Then what difficulty would it be to miss a line from a movie in order to save 10 lives?

What difficulty would it be to miss a hit movie in order to save 100 lives?

What difficulty would it be to miss out on some fun so that the nation can experience fun?

It"s your call. We should not always be so selfish and think of the greater good.
Debate Round No. 2
lord_megatron

Con

"If you do remember something gory and violent, then yes, they are still part of your subconsciousness. They leave an impact in your life, and not for the better. Congrats! You"ve helped me prove my point!"
So what if I remember a few action scenes? From Pro's logic, every martial artist, boxer and wrestler should be murderers, which is simply not true.
I don't propose that we have no censor board (I don't think there's a country without it, is there?) but that they must change their policies, introduce new policies or change the heads/staff to improve the censorship.
While pro may have a few links and case studies, it still shows no evidence that violence or abusive language provokes more violence. We are not copy-pasters in real-life. We have our own choices and our own mind, that can't be easily bended to anyone else's will. From pro's logic if violent scenes cause violence, charity scenes should increase charity, marriage scenes should increase marriages and worship scenes should strengthen religion.
Furthermore, pro claims "censoring saves lives", yet I don't see a fundamental drop in crime rate, or murder/assault rates since the new censor board. Pro relies on the data of a controversial study to prove his point, which is invalid. It is invalid as this doesn't justify making the movies A-rated, as while children may "get more influenced", adults are the ones who have the tools and resources for planning out a violent assault.
Lots of people have watched action movies, or martial arts training, or boxing/wrestling matches and action games. Not all of them are murderers. Only a small minority of them have showcased violence. This is an attempt to decrease the business of these ventures. Many competitors secretly fund "studies and research" into these topics, and try to discredit the fields. In turn these people fund "studies and research" that credit their fields. This is all a game of propaganda.
Good day to you too.
TheRealJamesArq

Pro

Hello everyone!

Before I move on to the closing remarks, I’d like to thank the opposition. Thank you for a great debate and I hope you’ve equally enjoyed the conversation.

First, I’ll quickly do some rebuttals on the opposition’s statement:

“So what if I remember a few action scenes? From Pro's logic, every martial artist, boxer and wrestler should be murderers, which is simply not true.”

No, I did not imply that people who remember graphic scenes are murderers. What I said has been twisted and has been plucked out of context by the opposition.

There is an irrefutable correlation between those who watch violent movies to domestic violence. And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense as to why it would be the case. If people are not exposed to violence, if they do not see people hurting others on screen, there would be less motive and reason to do the same as it is not the standard.


"Pro relies on the data of a controversial study to prove his point, which is invalid."

All the evidence presented were valid and I see no reason as to why they are to be discredited. They may or may not be controversial, but that is beyond the point. Unlike the opposition who solely relied on his feelings, opinions, and theories, I actually presented evidence. Which in and of itself says something.

“We are not copy-pasters in real-life. We have our own choices and our own mind, that can't be easily bended to anyone else's will.”

People are smart, they can think for themselves. That is absolutely true, to some extent. Except there comes a point where other factors play in.


If everything people see are violence and profanity, that will instantly become the new norm. That will be the current standard of living. That is what people will follow.

We can already see this in action. People are so facinated by the current pop culture that we can see children spitting out lines from movies and adults adapting current trends.

Can you tell me honestly that you have never wished you could be like one of those actors on screen? Can you tell me that you always walked out of the theater feeling exactly the same as you walked in? That you have never shared the emotions, the joy, the adrenaline, the sorrows of the movie?

The simple fact is that movies and films DO impact our lives.


"Many competitors secretly fund "studies and research" into these topics, and try to discredit the fields. In turn these people fund "studies and research" that credit their fields. This is all a game of propaganda."

It is great that you know all these things. Mind presenting any evidence?

-------------------------------

Really, will missing a line from a movie kill you? Because having those profane scenes in there could physically, emotionally, or mentally scar someone.

There are ways to watch the uncensored version, DVDs and purchases online are not censored. There is a way to still watch the full movie.

But please, for the sake of others, allow censorship to take place. It...





      • Helps To Control Panic and Fear




      • Avoids Children From Being Exposed




      • Practices Sensitivity




      • Security Measure For The Country




      • Stops Conflict





Like I keep saying, it's really not difficult. We've proven that censoring movies saves lives, we've proven that censoring movies allows for safeguarding of the nation, we've proven censoring movies is vital.

Then what difficulty would it be to miss a line from a movie in order to save 10 lives?

What difficulty would it be to miss a hit movie in order to save 100 lives?

What difficulty would it be to miss out on some fun so that the nation can experience fun?

It's your call. We should not always be so selfish and think of the greater good.





Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: 42lifeuniverseverything// Mod action: NOT Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently analyzes the arguments given and explains why he's awarding sources, making specific references to points supported. The reporter's claim that the source points have no justification does not hold up to scrutiny, as the voter generally explains the reason and provides specifics throughout the RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: 42lifeuniverseverything// Mod action: NOT Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently analyzes the arguments given and explains why he's awarding sources, making specific references to points supported.
************************************************************************
Posted by TheRealJamesArq 8 months ago
TheRealJamesArq
@lord_megatron, thanks for the debate. It was fun, informative, and a bit challenging.

Hope you do well in all your debating endeavors.

Cheers!
Posted by lord_megatron 8 months ago
lord_megatron
Maybe I should start making no research allowed debates, cause my laziness knows no bounds
Posted by lord_megatron 8 months ago
lord_megatron
Aye a quite difficult debate, but fun yeah
Posted by TheRealJamesArq 8 months ago
TheRealJamesArq
Thanks for stopping by, 42lifeuniverseverything! (may I know your name? Just to get to know each other; no stalking, promise. :P )

I agree, it was a fun debate. Not perfect, but fun nonetheless.

This was my first finished debate so not that sure how it went. I'll use the suggestions for improvement and hopefully learn from them.

Cheers! :)
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 8 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
RFD Continued:

Secondly, the study is claimed to be controversial but Con has no evidence to prove why. So the study stands. I conclude that Pro wins the violence argument on his study alone. Con also adds in however that "Lots of people have watched action movies, or martial arts training, or boxing/wrestling matches and action games. Not all of them are murderers. Only a small minority of them have showcased violence." This argument is good, but Pro responds that saving some lives is better than saving none. Because Con agreed to Pro's standard of human life, this argument stands for Pro. The argument itself under violence is not the best arguments that could have been made, but it holds because of the study and Con's weak attempts to rebut.

2. Language.

Con claims that the Indian board "they even cut out the foul language with a beep and still release it as A." Once again no evidence but I am assuming its true.

Pro first responds by saying that "The thing is, when they censor out a couple of curse words and derogatory phrases, they are not taking anything out of a movie. The essence of the movie is still there, and can still be enjoyed. Now, if the movie cannot be enjoyed without the curse words, maybe you should consider the movie you are watching." A fair argument. Con responds that "Furthermore, foul language can sometimes help express the characters emotions better, and a beep is rather disturbing anyways." No sources for either claim, so they stand conflicting and moot. Pro responds that "There are ways to watch the uncensored version, DVDs and purchases online are not censored. There is a way to still watch the full movie." Now this is a continuation of the argument up to this point (not a new argument), so it counts and Pro wins the language argument because of it. Also it is common sense. Pro is asking for censorship in theaters because uncensored DVD versions exist.

For these reasons, arguments go to Pro.

I VOTE PRO.

Great Debate!
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 8 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
Let me first say that I learned some new things reading this debate, which means you both did a great job.

RFD:

I am giving sources to Pro because Con had only his own word, while Pro had experts to back up his opinions.

Arguments.

I give arguments to Pro for several reasons.

1. Violence.

This was a large argument. Con asserted that "a bit of blood and gore" was the current state of censorship to an A rating. No source provided, but I will accept this so the debate is not in doubt. Pro responds with an interesting argument with sources. Pro claims that "It has been proven, time and time again, movies cause people into action." Pro backs this up with studies and examples (fails to cite examples correctly), and has a solid argument that violent tendencies with violent movies leads to violent acts. I find this persuasive. Con responds in a couple ways. People prone to violence due to movies "are fools and have a screw loose already." This argument is offensively put, but maybe true. Con also claims the violence side of the rating board is biased, a point that goes unaddressed by Pro so Con wins it. Back to the major argument though. Pro responds to the fools statement with "This is an extremely ludicrous assumption that is unfounded and unwarranted." Because Con responds that "While pro may have a few links and case studies, it still shows no evidence that violence or abusive language provokes more violence." Therefore assuming that violence does not happen. But it does, and the study has some merit. So the response is not good. Con responds also with "Pro relies on the data of a controversial study to prove his point, which is invalid. It is invalid as this doesn't justify making the movies A-rated, as while children may "get more influenced", adults are the ones who have the tools and resources for planning out a violent assault." Firstly this is too late to bring the new argument of the rating in. Secondly.....

To be Continued.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 42lifeuniverseverything 8 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
lord_megatronTheRealJamesArqTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.