The Instigator
WohMi
Pro (for)
The Contender
nafsun
Con (against)

Movies should not be banned.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
WohMi has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2018 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 81 times Debate No: 107976
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

WohMi

Pro

I saw Con's post in the opinions and thought this would be a good thing to debate on instead of people voting on.

Movies have not been shown to increase crime rates. Where Con got this information from is unknown to me. You say that ALL movies are bad. So, consider this: A young child is watching the movie "Mulan." After watching this movie, (according to Con's "evidence") the child would now go out and tie someone to a rocket, before launching him into the sky. This is incredibly unlikely, in fact, the only person who would even probably consider this would be someone with a severe learning disability, or a isolated rich adult who believes he can do whatever he wants, which could also be called a learning disability.
Once more, Movies are mainly intended for entertainment. Watching a horror movie would not make me, nor probably anyone else, want to go on a chainsaw-murder rampage. I look forward to seeing your points, and I hope you will respond to this.
nafsun

Con

According to Emile Durkheim(A Criminologies) Differencial Association, he said: Criminal behaviors are learn by association with the people in the society through either by communication or learning the technique and the processes of committing criminal act. This theory was develop in the 19th Century, at that time, their was no means like movies, social media, films which shows deviance behavior, so the theory of Differencial Association only assumed criminal behavior as a process of learning through communication with criminal. But as time move on this theory was constantly upgrade to the point that it put watching films as a process of learning criminal behavior. You gave an example about "mulan", take a look at cartoons like tom and jerry, some children usually like tom more than jerry because they want to know more about how criminal act are being planned by tom. Sometimes, Tom succeed but other time he fail. So this give children a vision that criminal behavior should be well planned before they are committed( The rational theory of criminology). And you make and example about watching a horo film, horror films at least if it doesn't teach you criminal act, it shows you how they are committed which in the end you may end up adapting to those criminal acts that you saw ( Social Learning Theory). A lot of films now a days have some element of good and bad sections, if you have watch a series called person of interest, you will see that the protagonist i.e the actor, a genius programmer created a machine that can detect crime before it occurs and to stop the perpetrator from committing the crime while in the series as well their is a machine like his own who's main objective is to turn the world upside down. So this movie a person may be interested in the machine who put the world at turmoil than the good one which may lead to him wanting to be come a computer hacker for that reason. It is important to note that all film have some element of bad and good action and the objective for the person watching the film is to either stick to good part or the bad part. If movies have good and bad part, their is probability for a person to take the wrong side which may lead home into committing criminal act because he learned it from the movie he watch. I hope this is enough to convince you that movies should be banned.
Debate Round No. 1
WohMi

Pro

The theory that you cite from Emile Durkheim is clearly outdated, as you say yourself that it was written in the 19th Century. In the 19th Century, people believed that cigarettes were healthy for you! Also, since Con claims that the Criminal Behavior is learnt by association with people through society. The problem with that is that they didn't have is TVs, Radios, or Social Media! Con has disproved their own theory, because if the theory was written in the 19th century, and the people who wrote it didn't have TVs, Radios, or Social Media, then how would they know if those came under that stereotype. More importantly you only mentioned cartoons like "Tom and Jerry," yet Con wants to ban all movies? What about police training movies? What about old Disney movies? What about advertisements for Charity? Yet again, banning those movies would violate the 1st Amendment, the freedom of speech, in the United States. Plus, what would happen if people were discovered watching movies? Would they get the same crime that the characters in the movie committed? I believe that someone would be hard-pressed to find a person who believes that you should do everything you see in movies. Con's arguments really don't have much structure or proof.

Your Move.
nafsun

Con

I have a question for you pro. Don't you know that theories are never outdated, Criminologists are always updating previews theories. Let me tell you something Pro, I think you are just repeating what you have already said before, so I think you are out of point. Let me say this, Don't you know that the police exist since before the advent of modern technology i.e industrial revolution and don't you know that people give charity long before Movies were made and don't you know that their have being Disneys on stage long before Movies were invented. Let me tell one more thing, About 90% of movies now a days contain 3 or more out of this elements:
1. Sex
2. Drugs
3. Trafficking i.e Human
4. Money Laundry
5. Corporate Crime
6. White Collar Crime
7. Victimless Crime
8. Violence

Can't you see, if a lot of movies will contain this several element, how can you say that movies bring more good than harm and that movies should not be banned. Let us take a look at popular movies which a lot of movie watchers have watch eg fast and furious - this movie shows how laws are break by driving recklessly on the road which when real life people see the tend to be curious in learn driving and drifting cars which might lead to murdering some one while driving like those guys in fast and furious. So, Pro tell me one good lesson drive from fast and furious? None. Take a look at the Avengers, their is nothing good to learn in that kind of movies but violent act. Pro if you will say that you will learn saving life, I will disagree because life are saved long before such kind of films are created. Let me add, this you talk about police films, in police film, is either you choice to behave like the bad guy that the police are chasing or to become a police and if you take a look at the society know a lot of people don't even care to work at the agencies, so they would learn the technique of committing crime which the saw in the movies. So, I think your preview argument is wrong Pro. Try harder next time.
Debate Round No. 2
WohMi

Pro

(There's spoilers for the Avengers movie in here! I'll put that in a different font.

Con, where is your proof for this? Where is any proof that movies should be banned? Also, banning movies would be a direct violation of the 1st amendment. Banning movies would simply be tyrannical, and I doubt any police or governments would choose to follow that movement. Also, theories do go out of date. Theories that have gone out of date: Tomatoes are poisonous. Cigarettes are healthy. Also, they're just theories. Not proven facts, but theories. I could make a theory that water is poisonous for the human body. It's just a theory. Of course normally drinking water won't harm you. Watching movies is not as vital as drinking water, but it certainly won't harm anyone. You made the point about Avengers. The Avengers is a movie about CRIME-FIGHTING people who want to save people. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a person who would watch the Movie about the Avengers and then procede to make a Tesseract, contact aliens, then bring them into New York to invade Earth. Movies use something called a THEATRICAL element. Also, since you said that people learn crimes, wouldn't we have to ban all forms of entertainment and news? News tells about crimes and usually how they were committed, so we'll have to ban that too. Most plays have some "Crime" in them, so lets ban them all too! In total, Con wants to ban: Movies, Radio, News, Television, Plays, Newspapers, and anything else that mentions a crime in them. Con, I hope this shows you how ludicrous and impossible this plan would be.
nafsun

Con

What is the work of the police? To reduce the rate of crime since crime cannot be eliminated. So, why would the police or government as you said not want movies to be banned if it will reduce crime rate. And you said you could make a theory that water is poisonous for the human body. Who on earth told you that this days theories are made just base on ideas. Theories are made base on scientific research, they employ scientific method in trying to analyse and explain social phenomenon. They make assumption's, observation's and experimentation in trying to explain social fact, so don't have the idea that every layman can make his own theory. I can see that you have no objection to fast and furious Pro, that's good. You also said something about banning all entertainment and news. No body said that we should banned News, Radio, Newspaper or Play, Pro what is the topic of concern here. I want movies to be ban not News, Radio or Newspaper. Let me ask you one thing, What do you think is use as a method of entertainment and news in the past? Am sure you know the answer, Radio and Newspaper. News are being spread around the globe through the use of radio and newspapers in the 19th, that is why their is low crime rate in old era because the technology that brought movies have done more harm than good. So, why should we not continue to use the previews method of spreading information and news. As you can see the visuality of reality show on movies make people curious to see the bad side of the global world. If information can be spread through non-visual means like newspaper's and radio, why do we need movies or television at all. The only different between movies and events in radio is visualization, and if seeing this visuality will lead to more crime as we could see in today's world why would we not banned movies. Of course I will not say that watching movie is the only method to learn criminal act but it is one of the methods. Take a look at wrestling movies, A lot of people died while trying to do what the wrestlers does on stage in the real life. I have experience this myself, my brother was a great fan of Randy Orton and he try to do his finishing movies on his colleague and he broke his arm, so tell me if wrestling will lead to social calamity why do we need it. Of course, I did not say that every movie is bad, but if bad ones are more than the good ones, why should we not banned them. Take a look at the world in the past, people live a happy world even without movies, what are the novels for, they are made base on mirror of the society. So, I will conclude that life will continue to be sweet without movies, let us read novels, listen to plays and entertainment on radio and read news in the newspaper.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.