The Instigator
Jessalyn
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheOrator
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Marilyn Manson should not be banned in any part of the United States.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
TheOrator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,223 times Debate No: 24895
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

Jessalyn

Pro

This debate will regard the issue of musician Marilyn Manson being banned from certain areas in the United States. I will be arguing that Marilyn Manson should NOT be banned (at any point, current or not) from any part of the United States. My opponent will be arguing the contrary; that Marilyn Manson should, indeed, be banned from certain areas.

Because musicians are not banned from areas by default, the party holding the Burden of Proof will be Con.

Debate Round Structure:
R1: Acceptance and clarifications.
R2: Opening arguments.
R3: Rebuttals and (optionally) additional arguments.
R4: Closing statements--no new arguments may be presented in this round.

I look forward to an interesting debate!
TheOrator

Con

I'll accept, but I'd like to clarify the burden of proof. There isn't really any way for me to even have a burden of proof in this round let alone fullfill one simply because I'm not presenting a statement and holding it to be true, Pro is. However, I'm not suggesting that pro fulfill a burden of proof in the round. It would seem that attempting to uphold a burden of proof will simply lead to trivial nitpicking in this specific debate, and so I propose that neither side attempt to fulfill a burden of proof. We simply both provide valid reasons supporting our side and the audience votes for the one who provides the best reasoning, not on whether or not someone provided sufficient proof.

I'm assuming everyone's clear on what banning is? I think it's too simple to provide definitions for it :P
Debate Round No. 1
Jessalyn

Pro

Thank you very much for accepting! I see your point, Con, and agree. Neither party will hold the Burden of Proof, then; only our individual arguments will be accounted for.

Unfortunately I am unable to find reliable accounts/articles addressing precisely when, where and why (legally why) Marilyn Manson has been banned. Please forgive my lack of affirmation on this, as I have searched high and low for reliable sources with no luck whatsoever. Because of this, I will be making my arguments on realistically hypothetical justifications for the banning of Marilyn Manson only. I suppose you could consider this my disclaimer: I do not claim any of my possible “reasons” presented are factual. I am simply covering various possibilities.

The first of my arguments deals with the freedoms granted in the First Amendment (1):

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


When examining possible reasons for the bans, anything related to religion, speech, press, assembly, and/or petition cannot be legally justified.

  1. Freedom of Religion: Marilyn Manson’s music and performance-style often raises religious controversy in highly Christian-populated communities (2). This is for obvious reasons, none of which are protected by the First Amendment. Religious people are offended by Marilyn Manson’s performances? While that’s arguably sad and terribly
    depressing, no legal action can be taken on that basis. If they don’t like Manson’s religious messages, they should avoid his performances and leave his fans the freedom to attend—not pass a ban against him to deprive all citizens of attending.
  2. Freedom of Speech:
    Again, the lyrics in many of Manson’s songs are deemed offensive by those who disagree with his opinions. The many attempted legal cases against Manson for causing the Columbine Shooting and teen suicides (2) have been dismissed on the establishment of Freedom of Speech.
  3. Freedom of Assembly (3): The
    “wild” nature of Marilyn Manson’s concerts is protected under this portion of the Amendment, given that no illegal activity is being carried out.
  4. Freedom of Petition:
    While this freedom does not directly relate, the concept of Marilyn Manson promoting hatred toward the United States government is protected. In the unedited version of “Blank and White,” Marilyn Manson sings “…shoot up the mall, the school, the president of whatever, whoever wants to fight!" Of course, the line “the president of whatever” was censored in the official version of the song, but even the original line is protected under Freedom of Speech and Petition.

As can be seen above, Marilyn Manson cannot righteously be banned based on religious opinion/expression, profanity, his fans’ “culture,” the nature of his concerts, or his promotion of opposition to the United States government.

I will now allow my opponent to respond and present his arguments before continuing with my arguments. Thanks again for accepting, and I look forward to your response!

Citations:

(1) http://www.law.cornell.edu...

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(band)#Controversy

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...

TheOrator

Con

Don't worry about specific cases. Although they're used as evidence, debates are normally better when you focus on the justifications behind the actions rather than the actions themselves, as you're doing :)

I guess we should have defined ban after all, I had no idea that the word "ban" implied legal action... However, I guess we can just define it now and debate over it in the rebuttals/last round.
Ban: (tr) to prohibit, esp officially, from action, display, entrance, sale, etc.; forbid; to ban a book[1]
I will not be focusing on legal practices, but rather justifications behind the act of banning the musical works of Marilyn Manson.

Contention 1: Households in the United States
subpoint a.) Raising a child.
When raising a child, a parent may feel that the lyrical content of Marylin Manson would be inappropriate for their children. As parents, they hold the right to bar this music from being played in their household. As this househould would be inside the United States of America's borders, a parent's right to ban music in the household disproves the resolution.
Subpoint b.) Scaring Children.
This somewhat deals with subpoint a. I am personally a fan of Marilyn Manson, and as such I've seen a good number of his music videos. Although I personally enjoy them, I remember a time when I was younger that I would be scared by creepy images on the television or computer. Marilyn Manson videos can certainly be included in the things that can scare a young child [2, 3, 4]. Just like a parent can block certain television shows to keep this "scary" content from their children (at least so they can get to sleep at night without being plagued by nighmares:P), they have a right to ban these videos in the household. As this household is in the US, the resolution is negated.

Contention 2: Places of Business in the United States
The evidence for this section comes partly from my own work experience. I'm currently employed at a roller rink that plays music during work area to help keep the customers entertained. However, we get customers that range from grown adults to toddlers. Because of this, we can't play music that can be found as innapropriate to certain age groups or risk losing business. Therefore, there are certain musicians and songs (like mack city :P) that we ban. This includes profane singing and screaming that could either introduce small children to new curse words or scare the children, respectively. Marilyn Manson songs contain both of these [2, 3, 4], and so our boss has banned them from the playlist. Because she has a right to ban these songs, and the workplace is in the US, the resolution is negated.

I anxiously await rebuttals from my opponent :)

Works Cited:
1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
2.(first video)
3.(second video)
4.(third video) ;
Debate Round No. 2
Jessalyn

Pro


Thanks for your response, TheOrator! It seems, however, that we’ve taken on very different interpretations of what exactly is up for debate. My argument was targeted more toward legal bans—such as those created in certain cities and states in the United States. I am arguing against such bans being created to prevent bands like Marilyn Manson from playing concerts based on unverified reasons. My opponent has taken a bit of a different approach, so hopefully we will be able to merge the two together as we rebut and present additional points.


Opponent’s Contention 1:


I do not disagree that households possess the right to ban musicians from their households. If a parent feels that Marilyn Manson is inappropriate for their child to listen to, by all means they have the constitutional right to prevent his music from entering their home. Therefore, while your first contention remains intact, I do not argue its correctness and was referring to city/state bans being upheld rather than household ones.


Opponent’s Contention 2:


Again, any business or household has the legal and moral right to ban music from being played—but only within the limits of their property. The issue I have is not with personal bans, but rather those that are upheld by a city or state to prevent Marilyn Manson from playing there. At one point, a Florida school even threatened to expel students who attended Marilyn Manson concerts (1). THIS is wrong, and this is exactly what I’m arguing against. The right of privately owned businesses and households to ban Marilyn Manson should obviously remain under all circumstances; however the right of controversial bands to play in all areas of America (cities, states) should remain as well.


Additional Argument:


In addition to my previous argument, I’d like to present one to counter what I’m sure will be brought up: illegal activity taking place at concerts. One might say such activity would permit the righteous banning of a band whose concerts contained this, however I dissent. While Marilyn Manson has been caught engaging in illegal acts onstage, this is no reason to ban him altogether. A more reasonable approach is to terminate illegally charged concerts as they occur, but to still allow the artist to perform in the future. This would leave it up to him to decide, ultimately, whether or not he will perform without having his show terminated due to illegal actions.


Again, I thank my opponent for his response and await his rebuttal with much excitement!



TheOrator

Con


Observations:
1.) It seems that my opponent has focused more on the legal justifications of actions wihle I have focused on the moral justifications. This is fine, seeing as my justifications weren't as based on morals as they were on fundamental rights, so both cases can be adjusted to a more middle ground. However, I would like the audience to remember the fact that we still won't be able to completely abandon our cases, so it will seem a little akward for a while here.
2.) My arguments about my case will likely be a bit shorter than my opponent's. I'm not trying to be lazy here, but the majority of my argumentation will have to do with the resolution, and as such will be fairly simple.

Arguments:
My Case:
My C1:
I will begin by stating that there is no refutation of the legality of parental bans in the household in this contention. My opponent seeks to overturn it by stating that it does not refer to the resolution, however I'd like to point the audience's view towards the structure of the resolution itself. Nowhere does it state that cities or states can't ban his music, simply that it shouldn't be banned anywhere in the United States. Despite her original intentions, my opponent cannot alter the resolution after initial arguments have been made. Therefore, as we agree that parental bans on Marilyn Manson's music are legally acceptable in the US, the resolution fails.

My C2:
My opponent does not dispute the legal right (and in fact reinforces it) to ban Marilyn Manson music in the workplace, and so for the same reasons as in the C1 the resolution or negated. My opponent proposes a bit of a strawman about Florida School systems, but this is irrelevant as we've already agreed upon two places in the US that can ban Marilyn Manson's arguements, and so the resolution is negated.

Pro's Case:
First Amendment:
The majority of my opponent's case has to do with the first Amendment. The only problem with this is that many of these rights actually work against her case, which I'll show in the following argumentation.

1.) Freedom of Religion: Unless the religious establishment in question is practicing illegal acts or otherwise harmful activities, the government cannot intervene in religious practices due to the First Amendment right of freedom of religion. Because a ban on Manson's music within the religion in question is neither harmful nor illegal, the government has no right to prohibit the ban of his music within the churches themselves. Therefore, the American churches, mosques, synagogues, and so on are places within the US that hold the religious and moral right to ban Marilyn Manson's music within themselves, and so the resolution is negated.
2.) Freedom of Speech: The freedom of speech is a two-way street, so to speak. Although opponents of Manson cannot legally stop his fans from listening to his music (unless they are minors, as they do not hold full rights in the US), the fans of Manson cannot stop individuals from placing bans on his music within their families.
3.) Freedom of Petition: Although I don't have any specific arguments to reinforce my own beliefs in this section, I believe that my opponent misunderstands the freedom of petition. The freedom of petition protects the people's rights to demand certain actions from the government, whether to protect them or correct "grievances".

So, as we can see, the first and second rights listed in the First Amendment actually reinforce my case, and present further reasons why the resolution should be negated.

Additional Argument:
Although I'm sure my opponent agrees that parents are able to prohibit their children from attending these concerts, I'm not advocating the prohibiting of the concerts themselves. I am simply listing reasons why the resolution is false, and so I have nothing against this arguemnt.

And so, because there are places within the United States where Marilyn Manson's music can be legally and morally banned, and because my opponent cannot alter the resolution this far into the round, the resolution is negated. Vote Con :)
Debate Round No. 3
Jessalyn

Pro

Alright, obviously I made a mistake in the original wording of my claim. I realize it was left open to loopholes, which I do apologize for. Rather than saying "...in any cities or states," I oversimplified to "...in any part," which I now see left considerable room for differing interpretation. While my original intention was to debate whether or not Marilyn Manson should be legally banned from states or cities in America, the mistake was on my part and I cannot make any further arguments. Technically speaking, my opponent is correct. Marilyn Manson can be banned in American households and businesses--it is their legal right, and they deserve this right no matter what. However, my intended resolution still stands untouched: Marilyn Manson should not be banned in any area (i.e., city, state, district, etc.) in the United States.

Because no additional arguments can be made in this round, I will not bother rebutting my opponent's criticisms of my previous points. I would, however, very much like to debate my originally intended resolution at another time if my opponent would agree to it. Although not what I intended, it's been fun, and I thank my opponent once again for an interesting debate.
TheOrator

Con

All right, in the model of my opponent's final round I'll also just post a conclusion paragraph.

All I'd like to remind the audience of in this round is that my opponent cannot change the resolution after the initial arguments. Although I tried to change my argument to include the legal aspect on musical bans, the problem with altering the resolution after people have built their cases is that it completely scews the argument to favor the one who altered it. This is a perfect example, after I built my case, my opponent attempted to alter the resolution in such a way that it completely obliterated my case without any legit argumentation about them. I'm not saying that my opponent did this with malice in mind - I don't think that's the case at all - but you can see how unfair that shift is. So, in the aspect of fairness, the argumentation should be over the resolution as shown in the debate and clarified in the first round (pre-argumentation). And so, because we need to look at the resolution that was originally stated, you can see that both my opponent and I agree that there some places in the United States that where it is legally and morally justified to ban Manson's music, and as such the resolution is negated.

Vote con :)
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chelicerae 4 years ago
Chelicerae
The resolution did not state that the government of a city or state should not ban Marilyn Manson. It stated that Marilyn Manson should not be banned in 'any part of the United States'. Con was able to prove to Pro that parents should be allowed to ban Marilyn Manson and his music from their household. Pro stated 'Again, any business or household has the legal and moral right to ban music from being played'. Therefore, the resolution is negated, as Con proved that households should be allowed to ban Marilyn Manson.
Posted by Jessalyn 4 years ago
Jessalyn
Oh, okay! Thanks for telling me haha. I don't think it would have made much of a difference in this one anyway, though.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Oh, and hey Jess, I don't know if this is for all styles, but in High School Lincoln Douglass debate, no New Arguements simply means you can't bring up new evidence or attacks (like if in the last round I started bringing up the right for cities to pass ordinances that wouldn't be accepted as an attack), but you can still rebut. They're considered old arguements, and so are normally fair game. This is just for information, I don't mean to insult or anything.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Haha, didn't pick up on that before, and sorry for the assumption.
Posted by Chelicerae 4 years ago
Chelicerae
I didn't say Marilyn Manson was bad because of age. In fact, I bought 'Born Villain'. I just thought this was similar the 90s culture wars.
Posted by Jessalyn 4 years ago
Jessalyn
Wow...Forgot my citation. Sorry about that!
1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Jessalyn 4 years ago
Jessalyn
Yes. Look at Alice Cooper, he's still about as good as he was 30 years ago.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
@Chelicarae Truly good music never gets out-dated. I listen to a lot of stuff from the '40s-'80s, not to mention Mozart, Bach, and other composers from centuries ago.
Posted by Chelicerae 4 years ago
Chelicerae
Wow, I feel like I'm in the 90s.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
I just realized that "ebates are normally better when you focus on the justifications behind the actions rather than the actions themselves, as you're doing :)" could be misleading. I meant that you're focusing on the justifications, not doing the wrong thing :P Sorry for any inconvenience
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Chelicerae 4 years ago
Chelicerae
JessalynTheOratorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: RFD in Comments
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
JessalynTheOratorTied
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: An unfortunate misunderstanding because both Pro and Con had good arguments. Con wins arguments though b/c his arguments fit under the resolution and Pro conceded his points. Defining terms up front would have been useful.