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

Is censoring parts of the media effective?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2016 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,245 times Debate No: 86580
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Thank you for debating with me.
I believe censoring part of the media is the cornerstone for all mankind. We don't hear the bad words and don't see the inappropriate things being done which makes us not want to be a part of that and not want to hear that as well. Individuals blame the community, the community blames the city, the city blames the state, the state blames the country, the country blames the continent and the continent blames society.
We are now merely just playing the blame game which in many cases causes global fights and wars to appear. The media does a poor job conveying this as they really are; this is the job of reality shows especially but the media needs to continue to do these things to keep their books on shelves and their shows on TV.

Therefore we may not be able to shut down the media as a whole but we can definitely stop a lot of it by CENSORING the media being shown.

The media also has an enormous effect on the minds of children, these little impressionist minds many of the time cannot differ between reality and media and therefore not showing them a sex scene or not having them hear a bad word is the solution to their little problem. We also need to put emphasis on the fact that killing and murdering is wrong and it is not right to pull someone off of the street and murder them (as many TV shows show).

My last point is that there needs to be an age restriction on certain channels and in certain tabloids or newspapers, the media in charge of these items though does need to be aware of whose hands the book might fall into or who may accidentally switch the channel meaning they need to keep in mind the audience and make those changes even if it means changing some articles in their tabloids or shows on their channel to make the rating a G for general.

Thank you for accepting, Good night and good luck.


I am accepting the debate as the Con. I will be debating against the censorship of media. Best of luck, Pro.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting I will allow you to start round 2 off with your side of the debate.


Thank you Pro,

Pro believes that censoring part of the media is the cornerstone of all mankind, this statement is blatantly untrue. Mass Media did not exist until the late 19th century when communication technologies were being invented and the public was gaining access to them (1). I would like to point out that mankind was well established at this point as this was the dawn of the industrial revolution and cities all around the world had existed for much time.

Pro states that "We are now merely just playing a blame game which in many cases causes global fights", this statement is completely contrary to the facts as wars have existed since the dawn of humanity, before mass media has even existed and Pro tries to connect that there is a correlation between censorship of media and less global conflict.

Pro's arguments to the debate topic are few and far between as Pro does not bring any facts to the table regarding censorship of the media at all and its benefit to society, Pro states over and over again how bad media is, yet does not address the effectiveness of censorship in the media on society.

To be able to say that censorship is good for society, it has to be determined what is bad. Violence and sex are both bad by the Pro's assumption, however, violence and sex both occur often in society and always have. What is determined as bad or good is personal opinion. Censoring the media limits what a person is exposed to, this includes new ways of thinking, new ideas, new problems and by censoring the media, you make the populace ignorant to these things.

Debate Round No. 2


Censoring the media is the cornerstone for all mankind in the information age, without censoring parts of it yes, the world would go a bit crazier and people would start accepting inappropriate and disgusting things as ok and acceptable.

Are you saying that we are better off not censoring the media because quite frankly not censoring will cause more global fights and corruptions, here is in fact a link from HARVARD.

Being the pro I am not supposed to "bring facts" regarding why it is good because obviously I am all for censoring it, there would no reason for my position to be accepting it.

I believe as a Con you are saying that we should just continue to have unprotected sex and murder violence and show it on TV and in newspapers. Only a person who is sick in the mind would think such a thing. The government would determine what is good and bad in the media and as a relative of a very high government official I can tell you straight up that unprotected sex in their eyes deems the same bad feeling as murder would.

I also believe that your argument was not proving your con side, it was just picking out my flaws as a pro side.


Acornlad forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.