Islamic advertisements on the television.
Debate Rounds (2)
I took a trip to America yesterday, and I was walking behind some gargantuan-boned natives who seemed to be very critical of the muslims in front of them. Although quite hysterical and unusually clever, calling muslims names like "Mad-hatters", "Bush-beards" and "Poo people" came off as quite offensive to a politically correct individual such as myself. These chocolate-chewing fatsos then started rambling on about the two numbers they knew, eleven and nine (although not in that order).
When trying to think of a solution to these hilarious racist nicknames, I suddenly thought of television. You can make anyone think/want anything with that nifty gadget. So that's what I want to debate today, whether Islamic advertisements should be used to make Americans more tolerant of muslims.
I thank you.
Contention 1: There aren't enough choco-chewing fatsos to merit such wasteful use of resources.
1.There are several technical problems with this proposition. This form of advertisement is obviously made to target the intolerant factions within America. Taking a reasonable approach, I'm sure my opponent must realize that not everyone in America are politically uneducated or biased. This also means that we don't really know what number or proportion of America actually needs some form of tolerance-promoting medium for intolerant thoughts/behavior toward the Islamic culture & people. If my opponent cannot prove that the intolerant faction is large enough to merit spending millions to blast subliminal pro-Muslim messages, then this rebuttal stands.
2. If the faction is insubstantial in size, what harm would it do in the larger political sphere? The US, now edging toward a $20 trillion debt, is nearly in no position to actually effect unjust culture-based military or social bias. This is clear in the citizens' overwhelming support for retracting soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. The current political opinions lean toward a regressing US involvement in world-policing. Even Republicans, known for their quasi-imperialist statutes in much earlier years, are working to enhance the UN, not the US's, ability to voice and enforce political & socioeconomic justice. This potentially small party of racist are no cause for harm.
3. The US educational & cultural environment is already permeated with a tolerance-promoting atmosphere. According to several polls, the majority of the United States is currently more tolerant than intolerant. This means that the number of racists are far outnumbered by the number of non-racists. In fact, just in the last decade, the LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) community has, in the form of popular public opinion gained landmark rights of equality that they never would have had 50 years ago.
The fact is, the gargantuan boned critics of America are a dwindling species. This being so, there really is no need to worry about putting on TV ads for a majority who already agree with the ads' positions. It's a waste of resources.
Contention 2: Is TV really the right medium?
Pro: "So that's what I want to debate today, whether Islamic advertisements should be used to make Americans more tolerant of muslims."
Response: Let's look at how this was worded. PRO wants to use Islamic advertisements to... (wait wait, Islamic advertisements?) ...make Americans more tolerant of Muslims. Are you kidding me? That's like saying you want to send emails with your garbage can. While sending e-mails is a good idea, the garbage can is the wrong medium. 99% of Americans do not have any knowledge of the Islamic language, let alone understand long drawn-out social ads. It'd therefore be both impractical and expensive to place these alien ads in such a way as to have them be presented to the entirety of the 96.7% of the 360,000,000 Americans living in the US with TV's. You could feed millions starving African children for a year with this money. You could clean up a good chunk of the environment, subsidize lumber companies and stall the destruction of the Amazon. You could provide the poor with enough to get by for quite a while. You could save lives! Why would you waste it getting these astronomical-ice-cream-tubbing tubbies to give grudging approval of Islam?! Who cares about their worthless approval? Think of the starving African children!
That aside, TV is losing its sphere of influence. Statistically, more people prefer the internet over the TV. People don't even watch TV on TV anymore, they do it on the internet. With millions... billions of hours of declining television viewership, there is no reason to believe that the ad will actually have significant impact. The internet is the way to go. Another point: These people have months and years of built-up bias (12 years approximately since 9-11, possibly even more stemming from before), do you really think 30 seconds of promotional advertisements would be able to reverse that?
Contention 3: There is no reason for anything.
Let's create a chain in which we find whether or not tolerance, the end of which my opponent, through TV ads, theoretical achieves, is objectively imperative.
We'll start with the first link of the chain:
1.'Islamic Advertisements should be used to make Americans more tolerant of muslims'
Why is this important?
2. Tolerance creates a better environment for society; people are better able to coexist, to live in peace and to be happy.
What makes happiness and coexistence, a potential tenet for survival, important?
3. Survival and happiness are important for the well-being of humanity
How is the well-being and humanity of any objective importance?
4. It is not, people want to survive. We want to live in peace and happiness, what's wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong, freedom of speech bro. It's just that the chain ends in the subjective 'want'. Since it is subjective, it cannot, by definition, be, to any degree, imperative. The means proposed (Islamic TV ads) cannot be justified since the end (tolerance) is of no importance whatsoever.
Therefore Islamic advertisements to make Americans more tolerant of Muslims should not be implemented.
If PRO cannot offer any substantial reasoning for tolerance, then the proposition falls and CON wins.
I can't hope noticing is a bit more sophisticated and political than me. To top it off, he stole my term 'Chocolate-chewing fatsos'. He even stole my fun phrase 'Gargantuan-boned'. I hope this gets me the conduct vote or something, because I'm really peed off.
The first mistake that Con makes is that he worries about the issue of money. This debate is about whether this idyllic idea SHOULD be put into action, not whether it can be put into action or whether it should be America's number one top priority.
I think it would be good because it would make Americans less racist, which makes everyone happy and people like happiness so I'd be creating a world that everyone likes.
Con asks the rather bewildering question: "What makes happiness and coexistence, a potential tenet for survival, important?".
Well, Con, I'm glad you asked. You see, if everyone hated each other and never wanted to speak to anyone, we would die as there would be nobody to make babies with.
Also, Con claims that television is losing its influence, and that the Internet is better. Maybe we should have them there too, but Con never backs up his point. But everyone knows that old geezers are racists who watch the television, correct?
Next, I'd like to unveil my next point. If these adverts were to happen, there are a load of cheesy slogans to be used, such as:
Healthy Muslims - Putting the slim back into Muslim!
Muslims with good singing voices - Putting the la back into Allah!
Muslims who eat healthy foods - Putting the muesli back into Muslim!
I wrote some of those myself, by the way.
All of these things would make radical racists tolerant of Muslims, who I know from personal experience are good people, not yelling crazy people who blow things up.
I'd say that I've provided a very good case as to why there should be Islamic advertisements (by which I mean advertisements featuring Muslims, not advertisements in another language, as semantic-loving Con insists on interpreting it as.
This debate is about whether this idyllic idea SHOULD be put into action, not whether it can be put into action or whether it should be America's number one top priority.
No, this debate is about whether or not we should put tolerance-inducing, Islamic advertisements on television. I never said anything about priority, this is about practicality. I agree that spreading tolerance to everyone is an idyllic goal we should work toward, but that is not part of the resolution. The resolution explicitly states: "Islamic advertisements on the television."
I don't know where you are going with this, but this holds little or no relevance whatsoever.
The problem with PRO is his complete lack of understanding of the word, 'should'
Should, by definition, implicates necessity. This means that, for something to be sufficiently categorized under this word, it must have a compelling degree of necessity.
This leads to the following question: What determines necessity?
I made two approaches to this question.
The first approach outlined in round 1 was generic. I simply took the costs of the proposition (monetary cost, opportunity cost, etc.) and weighed it with the benefits. The sacrifice necessary to achieving the goal of removing intolerance in America does not outweigh the costs. There are simply better alternatives and the proposition therefore should not be implemented.
To drive this nail home, let me provide a more extreme example to show how this line of logic works:
-Most of us want to attain world peace and fix our progressing environmental destruction
-Option: remove the human race
First off, this is exactly what PRO does. He presents a positive goal, tolerance, but limits our option to TV ads. Second: As you can see, this is judgment is subjectively made; others can say benefit > cost and who's to argue that? It all boils down to our personal world perspectives (your opinion!!). This connects to my second approach: there is no objectivity, therefore nothing can be a necessity.
My opponent's response to the second approach is an appeal to humanity's evolutionary instincts of survival and reproduction. The problem: Why is that important in an objective sense? It is only important to us because we personally want to survive and be happy, but in the grander scheme (if there is one), it doesn't matter. Everything lives, everything dies. As long as all of existence continues moving along the fulcrum of time, everything that we see right now, the stars, the sun, the moon, the earth, etc. will eventually disappear. What is humanity but an insubstantial speck when compared to infinity? Nothing is important. You die, who cares? Humanity does because humanity thinks its own personal subjective desires to survive and reproduce are important for some odd reason. They are not. Try as you might, you cannot prove humanity's necessary existence. Please refer to the 'chain' in round 1 if you are still confused. It can't get any clearer.
In response to my blurb questioning the capabilities of the TV ad method ("do you really think 30 seconds of promotional advertisements would be able to reverse that?"), PRO provides possible messages for these ads:
"Healthy Muslims - Putting the slim back into Muslim!
Muslims with good singing voices - Putting the la back into Allah!
Muslims who eat healthy foods - Putting the muesli back into Muslim!"
Does PRO really think cheesy slogans will remove years of ingrained racism? If an ad appears stating that the world is flat, would you suddenly take up that notion despite the overwhelming contrary evidence? Maybe, but most probably not.
Pro fails to prove that the medium (TV) suggested is capable of achieving the goal of tolerance.
Internet in the US: 50 years ago there was no internet, everyone either went outside to play or watched TV instead. Internet has now been added to the list. According to internetworldstats.com the number of internet users in the world totals 7,017,846,922 . This is nearly the entire human population! If you think this doesn't deduct from world TV viewership, then you should do something very extreme that pertains to self deprecation.
"All of these things would make radical racists tolerant of Muslims, who I know from personal experience are good people, not yelling crazy people who blow things up."
Wrong: Pro only thinks that these would be sufficient in achieving the goal of tolerance.
Super-awesome-fun semantics aside, CON's points firmly negate PRO's premises. There is no reason to place Islamic ads on TV and never will be.
I like the way you mention Americans in derogatory terms. It shows your own prejudice of US and makes this debate slightly ironic. A proponent of tolerance shows intolerance of intolerant people. Ermagawd, I'm calling you a hypocrite!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Pennington 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||5|
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro was a lot nicer than Con, Pro made the point of use of copyrights. Conduct Pro. The only one to use proper sources was Con, sources Con. Both had equal S/G. I must give arguments to Con because Pro did not make the convincing argument that advertisement is needed. He also turned the argument into pleading. Arguments Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.