The Instigator
qopel
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Dylip
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Is America being "dumbed down"?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Dylip
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,818 times Debate No: 30466
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)

 

qopel

Pro

Television is getting less educational and even news programs are becoming a form of entertainment, rather than a source of information.

Texting has encouraged young people to stop caring about spelling and grammar. Ur, U, B4, Y and other "abbreviations" are even showing up in student school papers.

Religion is hindering the advancement of science. Almost half of Americans don't accept evolution as a fact.

More people care about football scores than bother to vote. More people watch the Super Bowl than the State of the Union Address.

More people know who lives in a pineapple under the sea than know who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Dylip

Con

Hello, I'm Dylip, I'm eager to debate you as I've seen many, many of your debates.

'stop caring about spelling and grammar...'

That is, infact, incorrect. They use 'text-hand', as I call it, to save time. If they have a long amount of time, they (usually, this does not apply to all teens) take the time to use the proper spelling and grammar.

'Religion is hindering the advancement of science.'

Despite the fact that this is true is some cases, in most cases religion has helped science. Take the solar system as example. Worshipping the Roman God's once was a religion, I do not know if it is still worshipped, yet every planet (besides Earth) is named after a Roman God/Titan.

'More people care about football scores than bother to vote.'

That is not true, unless there are people who are mildly and over-obsessed with football.

'More people know who lives in a pineapple under the sea than who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.'

People know where the fictional character, "Spongebob Squarepants', lives due to the fact that it is a childhood memory, or a memory of their child's childhood.

Vote for Con.

Dylip
Debate Round No. 1
qopel

Pro

Con claims "They use 'text-hand'. In fact, it is just dumbed down lazy typing. There is no such thing as
text-hand. There is no official "dictionary" of what the abbreviations mean.
For example: What does gl stand for? Some say it stands for "good luck". Others might say it stands for "get lost" and yet
others may say it stands for "God lives".

Con says "every planet (besides Earth) is named after a Roman God/Titan." Naming planets after
Gods that don't exist is not helping to advance science. You can just as well name planets after
the 7 dwarfs.

Con claims "That is not true, unless there are people who are mildly and over-obsessed with football."
It is a fact that there are many "fans" (short for fanatics) that are indeed, mildly and over-obsessed with football.

Con says"People know where the fictional character, "Spongebob Squarepants', lives due to the fact that it is a childhood memory,
or a memory of their child's childhood."

That proves that people are, in fact being dumbed down to learn things at an early age that don't
mean anything of value, while not being taught things do that do have value.

Vote for who you believe made the best argument.
Dylip

Con

'Con claims they use 'text-hand'.

As Pro has not noticed, I mentioned it is what I call it, not the dictonary-defintion.


'Naming planets after Gods that don't exist is not helping advance science.'

This, actually, is false in my mind. Jupiter (the Roman god), is the king of the Gods. And in our solar system, is the largest gas giant. So, they matchup. Also, the naming of planets is (I believe), a very difficult decision. So, the names of the Roman Gods did infact help.

'...learn things at an early age that don't mean anything of value...'

The cartoon 'Spongebob Squarepants' does infact teach them something of value. The character 'Spongebob' has taught children to not give up, and you will succeed, in many episodes.

VOTE FOR CON!

Dylip
Debate Round No. 2
qopel

Pro

1. I don't care what Con wants to call it. It is, in fact, dumbed down lazy typing

2. Con says, "This, actually, is false in my mind."
What is in con's mind isn't proof of anything.

3. Con claims "The character 'Spongebob' has taught children to not give up, and you will succeed"
Spongebob has also taught children that yellow dish sponges can talk. That's very valuable to know.

Vote for who made the best argument.
Dylip

Con

1. Actually, it is not 'dumbed down', it's just a way to conserve their time.

2. If what was in our mind's didn't matter, this debate wouldn't be happening.

3. As Pro is using sarcasm, I will fully argue this.

The morale of the show is not to show that our kitchen sponges have lives underwater, but to show that no matter what happens, just keep trying and don't give up until you've succeeded.

Just so you know, you are rather rude. No offense.



VOTE FOR CON!

Dylip
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dylip 4 years ago
Dylip
I agree with qopel, keep your debates in a debate, and arguments in messages.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
This is the comment section, not the debate section.
Posted by kingsjester 4 years ago
kingsjester
I have not only voted on your debates tonight and as i have said before i have voted on your debates previous to debating you
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Thus, "You're not allowed to text a drive. Likespeace's argumaent makes no sense" is an unwarranted rebuttal, as unwarranted as your arguments in this debate. If you have evidence, produce it. If you're just stating your beliefs, expect skepticism. In this case, it turns out that 30% of states do allow texting while on the road. (That's not to say it's doesn't happen in the other states, any more than speeding being illegal means there are few speaders on the highway!) [1]

[1] http://www.ghsa.org...'re not allowed to text a drive.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
There are hundreds of debates you can vote on, yet you track mine down. V is for Vendetta.
Posted by kingsjester 4 years ago
kingsjester
I have every right to unbiasely vote on debate after i have read the evidence which is all i do.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
Then stop voting on my debates.
Posted by kingsjester 4 years ago
kingsjester
Yes but you make it sound like i'm out to get you in specific when i couldnt care less whether you win or lose any of your debates.. I said i exploited your one resolution and i did it because i thought i could win a debate because of it not because of any personal vendetta against you.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
kingsjester, YOU used the word exploit, not me!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
qopelDylipTied
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: Mostly, I'm awarding arguments to Con because Pro did not meet the burden of proof, not because Con's arguments were tremendous. For example: "Religion is hindering the advancement of science. Almost half of Americans don't accept evolution as a fact." Who is dumbing down America? How is America of today worse in this regard than America of yesteryear? Since you say evolution is a minority point of view, where is your evidence for it? This is an incomplete argument. Sure, the Roman gods being used for naming planets is also a weak argument in favor of religion. However, Pro had the burden of proof as the instigator of thedebate and the one making the claim.
Vote Placed by kingsjester 4 years ago
kingsjester
qopelDylipTied
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: As there was no evidence presented in this debate i will have to go off of conduct and who presented his arguments in the most intelligent and helpful way. Con did this successfully and also showed that pro could not prove that religion was hindering science and pro also made a very arrogant statement in implying that everyone should be an atheist and if you are not than you are hindering the expansion of what drives our technology, science.