The Instigator
Jitters
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
dtclark2188
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Is the media justified in releasing celebrities and politicians personal affairs?

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 6 votes the winner is...
dtclark2188
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2009 Category: News
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,325 times Debate No: 7194
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

Jitters

Pro

The media is fully justified in releasing personal information about celebrities and politicians as it lets people know who they are really seeing on the television.
dtclark2188

Con

To win this debate, Con must only prove that either celebrities or politicians are entitled to privacy from the media because of the conjunct "and." In other words, if it is true that celebrities deserve to have privacy, but it is false that politicians do, then Con has won the debate. Therefore, let me start by defining some of the terms.
1) Celebrity: A famous person. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...).
However, in order to make sense of this debate, it is clear that Pro makes a distinction between mere celebrities and politicians. Therefore, a politician is also a celebrity because he/she is famous, (to some small extent or else he/she would not have been elected) but he/she is distinct because he/she is in the political realm. Therefore, for the debate to make sense, a 'celebrity' will be defined as someone who is famous for non-political reasons, whereas a politician is famous for political reasons, and, therefore, falls within a separate category of 'politician.' Therefore, politicians will be excluded from the term 'celebrity' in order to make sense of the distinction in the debate topic.

First, I would like to argue for the unethical nature of releasing personal information about non-political celebrities. The first category of celebrity that I would like to address is that of the movie star. A movie star is an actor, who's job is to impersonate a different person on screen. Since information about the movie star's personal life does not add or subtract from the enjoyment one gets from his/her performance, the information is unethical to collect and distribute if it contributes to psychological or physical damage to the actor or if it is collected or distributed without the actor's consent because all people have an inherent privilege to privacy, which can obviously be revoked if said person breaks the law, but for no other reason. More broadly, this line of argumentation can be applied to all non-political celebrities if information about their personal lives damages them or their rights and privileges without increasing the effectiveness of their profession.

Second, I would like to argue for the unethical nature of collecting and distributing politicians personal information without their consent. Granted, a politician is a public figure who is supposed to represent the public's interests if he/she is elected. However, the personal information gathered about a politician that is not consensual only adds to ad hominem fallacies, (arguments against the person, which are invalid arguments) which ultimately detract from the political nature of debate. For example, if a politician does not support gay marriage rights and he/she lists a litany of reasons for why he/she does not support them, it is a fallacy to point out that he/she is gay or that his/her son or daughter is gay or so on. Of course, in the US, politicians are subject to the laws they pass, so if the politician does not mind giving up a personal right for objective reasons, then it is not a proper argument against him/her to state that he/she is gay. To summarize, personal information about politicians only adds to confusion of the voting populace by introducing irrelevant ad hominem arguments to the political discussions.

Therefore, since personal non-consensual personal information does not add and often subtracts from the professions which celebrities and politicians practice, and since all people have a right to privacy (exception: indictment of a criminal charge), then it is unethical for the media to collect and broadcast non-consensual personal information about celebrities and politicians.

Negated.
Debate Round No. 1
Jitters

Pro

Dear Mr. Con,
I got bored reading your argument in the first 12 seconds of comprehension.
Firstly, as I have described the topic as celebrities and politicians (which are obvioulsy celebrities), we WILL continue the debate as it was posted.
Secondly, celebrities become celebrities to be celebrated. They want to be in the news. Do you think Leonardo DiCaprio ENJOYS driving a Prius when he could buy 6 Aston Martins. No. Why would you sign on to be a celebrity if you didn't want to be a celebrity.
Thirdly, on the subject of politicians, which I would call Colin Powell and Maura Teirny quite different from each other, as one ran the country and the other ran the TV show ER; I quite honestly want to know who's running my country. It's not ethical to stone people to death in Saudi Arabia, yet people still do it. A sex offender has to tell everyone they're a sex offender. That's not "ethical." Logic plays a much larger role.
dtclark2188

Con

Seeing as how Pro is completely unprofessional in his response, and since he did not respond to my arguments, I see no reason to post a second argument until he refutes my first.
Debate Round No. 2
Jitters

Pro

You have wasted your second argument. I will refute you first argument, perhaps in more understandable terms. It's wrong.
dtclark2188

Con

Even though Pro still refuses to provide adequate reasons for why he thinks my argument is wrong, I will try to address the vague and mostly irrelevant points he raises at the beginning of round 2. My opponent claims that "celebrities become celebrities to be celebrated." This is a bizarre statement since no one really "signs on to be a celebrity," rather, they become a celebrity through successful use of their profession such as acting or singing, or they are simply born into celebrity based on their parents achievements. If the individual celebrity enjoys the spotlight and explicitly allows the media to publish facts about his/her personal life, that is his/her decision. However, when a celebrity is hounded and stalked for personal facts to the detriment of their happiness and contrary to their consent, then this is clearly unethical.
On my opponents third point, I also make a distinction between Colin Powell and Maura Teirny, which I clearly pointed out at the beginning of the debate. However, as I pointed out, the personal facts of Colin Powell's life are mostly irrelevant to his leadership abilities, and, therefore, without his consent it is unethical to publish personal facts.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Obvious bad conduct by Pro, pointless insults. Con made good arguments that were easily understandable. Pro was non-responsive. Pro had the burden of proof but gave no affirmative case. It's easy to avoid spelling and grammar mistakes when you don't say anything much.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Conduct: Con
S/G: Con - Pro's "arguments" are poorly worded & he lacks an understanding of conjunctive phrases.
Arguments: Con - Pro didn't show up... he essentially forfeited.
Sources: Tie (none except dictionary used)

>> "I will refute you first argument, perhaps in more understandable terms. It's wrong."

Really??
Posted by trendem 8 years ago
trendem
Conduct: Con
Spelling and Grammar: Tie
Convincing arguments: Con. Pro failed to address Con's arguments.
Reliable sources: Con. Neither side used citations, but Con provided more reasoning (which I consider a source) for his arguments.
Posted by Jitters 8 years ago
Jitters
ethically, not just legally
Posted by crackofdawn_Jr 8 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
Justified because the law says they can, or because it's actually a just thing?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Jittersdtclark2188Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by sorc 8 years ago
sorc
Jittersdtclark2188Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Jittersdtclark2188Tied
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 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Jittersdtclark2188Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Jitters 8 years ago
Jitters
Jittersdtclark2188Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by trendem 8 years ago
trendem
Jittersdtclark2188Tied
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:06