The Instigator
hardikcr7
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheBossToss
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Media- a weapon of intrusion or protection

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
TheBossToss
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2012 Category: News
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,402 times Debate No: 25117
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

hardikcr7

Pro

I think media is a weapon of intrusion because now-a-days brutalizing and vulgarizing are the key factors which dominate media in this nation. Advertisers have become mind benders, entering people mind, just as knife pierces butter. With growing technology reality is being manufactured , people are manipulated into believing something. The era of great belief maker is ending and era of make believe is beginning.
Now i wait for an argument from my opponent.
TheBossToss

Con

I accept, and wish to thank my opponent for offering up interesting subject material.

I will here be arguing that the media is a "weapon of protection", and to that end, I wish to define a few things:

media - ( usually used with a plural verb ) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely [1]

protection - the act of protecting or the state of being protected; preservation from injury or harm. [emphasis added] [1]

The media, by the definition provided above, communicates information to the populace. This information can consist of anything, from the news to celebrity activities to new books and movies. Entertainment has its obvious benefits in that it allows a population to relax and indulge in a different reality, be it via paper or the TV. However, the part of the media that has the most profound protective attributes is the news. Before news media via newspaper and, later, radio and television became widespread, people lived at the mercy of rumor and propoganda from various organizzations and governments. They became easily manipulated because of this. Take, for example, the Crusades in the Dark Ages. The Church sponsored the Crusades, and called upon Christians in Europe to fight to free Jerusalem from the Muslims. However, the Church's real motivation was the defeat of the Byzantine Empire's forces by Turkish armies, and the subsequent fear that Asia Minor would be conquered by the Turks[2]. The slaughter that would follow, perpetuated by Christians, was brushed off by the Church and Europe as the slaying of ignorant infidels, enemies of God. Take Antioch, where after breaking into the city after a lengthy siege, the Christians massacred the inhabitants. Nowadays, such wholesale, brutal murder would be played, day in and day out, by the news media. Such horror stories are loved by news media, as it causes more people to tune in. They inflate such stories to generate viewership[3], and while this sometimes causes distorted views, it is far better than not getting the news at all. To the contrary, such inflation of dangers protects the populace against potential harms, ensuring that true dangers have an almost 0% probability of going unnoticed. Company knowingly sold defunct products that led to loss of life? News media will scream about it. Government trying to take away your rights? The commentators will have a fit! New drug discovered that could cure AIDS? You will know for sure; news media will go crazy! Why in certain circumstances being hyperinformed by a news media addicted to scare stories can create a person who is overly mistrustful, in the vast majority of people it reduces the chances of individuals being caught by surprise by events they should know about.
Response to my opponent's arguments

I. "media is a weapon of intrusion because now-a-days brutalizing and vulgarizing are the key factors which dominate media"

"Brutalizing and vulgarizing" - I am not sure how this relates to intrusion, and I do not think media has, in any way, evolved to become more brutal or vulgar. In fact, with the emergance of competing news stations like Fox News and MSNBC who would be quick to blame each other were the other to do something immoral, I contend it has grown less so. Take, for example, the Spanish-American War. It is commonly accepted that "yellow journalism", or the embellishment of stories, caused this conflict. Reportedly, when a correspondent in Cuba reported there was no interesting activity, the owner of the newspaper, William Randolph Hearst, shot back, "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war"[4], implying he wanted war to sell more newpapers. Something more brutal than this I cannot imagine. Something more vulgar than lying to the public to sell newspapers is, indeed, hard to imagine. This occured in 1897, one year before the war started in 1898.

II. "Advertisers have become mind benders"

Advertisers have always acted this way. People have always exaggerated or outright lied about the usefulness of their products. In the 19th century in America, hundreds of placebo pills and other types of lies were perpetuated trying to make a quick buck, which led to a class of journalists called muckrakers, who sorted through the "muck" of inaccurately advertised products and brought the truth[5]. Here, I contend that media led to the debunking of these false products, and so protected consumers from wasting their money on products that would not work, were dangerous, or had no effect.

III. "The era of great belief maker is ending and era of make believe is beginning"

I am not sure what Pro is trying to say here. If he is referring to the exaggerated advertising, I discussed that above. Overall, I must recommend to Pro to say exactly what he means and not make metaphors, as the voters may be missing an important point in his argument.

Back to you, Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
hardikcr7

Pro

hardikcr7 forfeited this round.
TheBossToss

Con

Extend all arguments.

I hope my opponent returns so we can finish the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
hardikcr7

Pro

hardikcr7 forfeited this round.
TheBossToss

Con

Extend all arguments once again.

I hope my opponent returns, as I would like to see what his opinion is.
Debate Round No. 3
hardikcr7

Pro

hardikcr7 forfeited this round.
TheBossToss

Con

Extend all arguments, bla bla bla, the usual.
Debate Round No. 4
hardikcr7

Pro

hardikcr7 forfeited this round.
TheBossToss

Con

It appears my opponenet has forfeited all his rounds, and as he has been on since the debate started, it is clear he is avoiding this debate. With that in mind,

VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by TheBossToss 4 years ago
TheBossToss
Forgot to post my sources, so here they are:
1.www.dictionary.com
2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
3.http://www.creators.com...
4.http://library.thinkquest.org...
5.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by TheBossToss 4 years ago
TheBossToss
And in which country are we talking about? I assume India, but I am not sure.
Posted by TheBossToss 4 years ago
TheBossToss
It sounds more like you are arguing media bends reality/tricks people, not that media is "intrusive", which is the nature of the beast. I agree with TheOrator, clear up the resolution, because I don't understand what you are asking. Thanks! :)
Posted by hardikcr7 4 years ago
hardikcr7
The orator if you have the capabilities then please try to show them trough your debates.
So i challenge you
Do you accept it?
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Your challenge is a bit unclear. I take it that as the Con, I'd be arguing that the media is used for protection, but that's rather limiting. A general tip for structuring a debate is A.) Describing what general stance each side is taking (like "Pro will be arguing that Media is counter-productive while Con will be arguing that it's beneficial), B.) Making a clear resolution in the form of a sentence (Like "Media is not beneficial"), that way each side has a cemented positive or negative to achieve, and C.) Explaining all rules in the first round (Like, all examples must have sources) so there isn't any unpleasantness in the round.

But yeah, if you clear up the resolution, it would be greatly beneficial towards finding a partner
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
hardikcr7TheBossTossTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by Pro.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
hardikcr7TheBossTossTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave no arguements and FF a 5 round deate, arguments to the con and double the conduct points to the con as well
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
hardikcr7TheBossTossTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: F to the F