The Instigator
Nyctasha
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

One Direction should be banned from Asia

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 3 votes the winner is...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 502 times Debate No: 71969
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Nyctasha

Pro

Hello everyone! I would like to open an argument about One Direction. This boy band should be banned from Asia because it's leading our future leaders in spoiled little brats. This boy band is making girls ( and some boys ) go crazy. They lead to money loss ( Come on, just admit it. ). We should promote songs from our own countries. For my supposed opponent, I would like to hear your opinion and your counter! Wish us both good luck and no insulting please :)
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

I accept.

MY CASE

My main contention is that banning One Direction from Asia would be positively horrid because it denies freedom of speech--this right is positively sacrosanct, and predicated on the fact that people ought to be able to do as they wish so long as they do not harm others. In the absence of such harms, you're weighing freedom of speech above any subjective evaluation PRO provides--he needs to establish that there's merit in violating freedom of speech in this instance, and that there is justification in government force to deprive people of the right to express themselves, perhaps via song, in the way they see fit.

Second, this action will pose a deterrent to future artists or even to thinkers who dare to challenge the status quo, because the implication is that the government has the power of censorship for speech that it dislikes--irrespective of whether said speech is actually harmful. It will invoke fear in anyone with a creative mind, and imposes upon them an undue, unwarranted. hostile threat. Galilelo, for instance, was branded a heretic for speaking out against the Church-enforced consensus of a geocentric universe, and that delayed scientific progress. Affirming merely reinforces this bias, not only in the music industry, but in numerous other industries.

Third, this will establish the notion that, because any form of speech can be prohibited, any form of rights can be deteriorated without the slightest bit of recourse; should people speak out against such oppression, they will be silenced or even banned because the government has established that it has such a power. This is a highly dangerous, tyrannical and dangerous path to embark on, and places far too much faith in a central entity to establish--irrespective of democratic will--that one particular group ought to banned, simply because it, or PRO, don't happen to like its music or its message.

Fourth, this will deny people of their freedom to act as they wish, not only when it comes to producing music, but also to consuming what they want to consume--it undermines the free market principle that the best will rise to the top, while the undesirable will fall, and thus completely erodes the quality of the music industry. Applied broadly, as this principle must be in order to be the least bit ideologically consistent, this will lead to a tyrannical takeover by the government, the inevitable end result is a Marxist takeover of private property--no competition, low quality, no personal freedom, and absolutely horrid standards of living.


PRO'S CASE

PRO says, "This boy band should be banned from Asia because it's leading our future leaders in spoiled little brats."

First, PRO fails to establish a warrant for this claim. In the absence of evidence, you should not buy for one moment this baseless assertion--it cannot establish the resolution.

Second, the logic is postiively asinine--is PRO suggesting that the government ought to ban, or should have the power to ban, "that which can cause children to act like spoiled brats?" There's a laundry list of items, including virtually any material possessions at all, which can induce this. Even insofar as a boy band causes this--and PRO still provides us with no reason to think that it does--this falls flat unless PRO is willing to ban quite literally anything.

Third, this would create a nanny state even if the government sought to ban that which turns people into "spoiled little brats." That not only would expend an inordinate amount of resources that would be better spent elsewhere, but would undermine parental authority, deprive children of the freedom to act as they ultimately want (unless PRO would like to ban disorderly behavior all together, in which case blind confomority to the state, a la USSR, is the only acceptable behavior), and makes crimes out of innocents by reducing the threshold of that which ought to be worthy of conviction in lieu of merely condemend on a societal level. Society can condemn and inspire change from spoiled little brats, should this be an issue, but the government need not act to "ban" anything, because that won't solve anything--in much the same way people still use illicit drugs, or people still used alcohol while it was illegal, they will still be "spoiled little brats" even if the government were to seek to ban it.

Fourth, this claim is not only without warrant, but without impact--PRO fails to tell us what we stand to gain from this proposal, or to prove that it would actually work in ameliorating the issue of "spoiled little brats," in which case he provides us with no reason to weigh this over personal freedom, which is why you're preferring my first contention over his.

Fifth, what constitutes being a "spoiled little brat" is highly subjective, and thus entirely subject to the whims of a tyrannical government to define. Not only will this change as the government changes, unjustly denying people the right to even conform to it and thus leading to a large number of undeserved and unwarranted arrests; but it will lead to the government regulating all kinds of behavior, and without some objective standard, which is impossible to ascertain, this is nothing more than a subjective evaluation--i.e., nothing more than PRO's opinion of what proper behavior ought to be.

PRO says, "This boy band is making girls ( and some boys ) go crazy."

This argument suffers from the same weaknesses as PRO's first argument--there's no warrant, no impact, and no objective standard, meaning that what constitutes "crazy" is highly subjective, could sprout from a number of sources that PRO would need to ban in order to be ideologically consistent, and would lead to a tyrannical state that seeks to regulate behavior. Therefore, because he provides you with no benefit from this at all, you're weighing freedom of speech over this.

PRO says, "They lead to money loss ( Come on, just admit it. )."

This argument is the most ludicrous of PRO's opening case. He has no warrant other than "trust me"--do not allow him to do this, and prefer evidence over nonsensical, unsubstantitated assertions, which will never fly in any debate setting, no matter how casual or formal it happens to be. He is attempting to pull an impact out of the sky and imposing a charge upon One Direction that he cannot substantiate, so this should be considered nothing more than libel. The loss of freedom of speech is a clear impact from this proposal, so once more, weigh that over this contention.

PRO says, "We should promote songs from our own countries."

First, he doesn't tell us why this ought to be the case. He doesn't tell us why we ought to ban innovation and cultural diversity, and ignores that globalization--integration of cultures, goods, and ideas across national borders--is a fundamentally good thing that improves people's lives, whereas a closed-off country is subjected, on balance, to far worse standards of living.

Second, he doesn't explain how this is mutually exclusive with allowing One Direction, or why you can only promote songs from one's home country if you ban One Direction.


The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
Nyctasha

Pro

I can't believe you took this seriously. But sure.

One Direction :

They do things they shouldn't.Smoking and alcohol is terrible no matter what. Any smoking can ruin your voice. I think they are talented, just their lyrics are so bad sometimes. They are rude to other celebrities which isn't okay. They seem full of themselves. Also, they don't write their own songs. What real band/group wouldn't? And last but not least, their fans threaten you if you say anything they dont like. A lotta fans only ever talk about their looks but they need some meat.. I honestly don't wanna be told to kill myself because of what I do and don't like.

( Source : Hollybug )

One Direction :
The only reason Directioners listen to them is because they look good. And then they respond saying that they listen to their faces and what not. So why do Directioners make fun of Freddie Mercury? He's a million times better than them and I listen to him for his music. Also, their songs are stupid and cater to teenage girls. Their songs sound the same. They don't care if it means something, just as long as it sounds catchy. Their songs have 0 creativity and they rip off other artists. Their fame came to them way easily whereas there are better artists who are not yet famous, but they are working hard to get fame.

One Direction :

Virtually every One Direction song says "I love you, let's kiss! You're so pretty!", and they are filled with unnecessary "ooohs" and "yeahs". Their songs consist of the same simple chord progressions, and they make millions just because they bat their eyelashes at empty-headed girls with money to burn. Every one of their songs has the same theme, and they are completely incapable of creating anything original or memorable, and they have only managed to last so long because of their looks.

( Source : March-of-the-black-queen )

Only known for looks Their music is cheesy, their lyrics are awful, but oh look! They're pretty. All their songs are dreary ballads, but teenage girls just love to look at them. They are all "hot" and whatnot, which makes them famous. Who would want to listen to their "music"? If they were ugly and made that music, no one would like them.

( Source : 1D Haters )

Smoking and Drinking is bad for you, no matter what we're talking about. Do you want fans to do the same thing they do? No.

What we should do is listen to our local songs. Promote Local Mentality.

Listening to One Direction will make you adopt Colonial Mentality. You will rather listen to them than your own songs. Like, really?

I would listen to OPM ( Original Pilipino Music ) than any foreign music ( e.g. KPOP, JPOP & American )

We should encourage our own people to listen to our Own Music

I still wonder why you took this seriously tho.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

PRO asks why I took this seriously--though was it, seriously, not his intention for someone to actually take this debate with the intention of exposing the hilarity inherent in his arguments?


Overview: PRO does nothing more than provide new arguments. He drops every single one of my contentions and rebuttals, and doesn't respond to my arguments that you ought to weigh freedom of speech over subjective evaluations. Already, you're voting CON, because he is unable to issue a new rebuttal in the last round.



PRO says, "They do things they shouldn't.Smoking and alcohol is terrible no matter what. Any smoking can ruin your voice."

The reason this is flawed is because PRO's "ought" claim is unwarranted--he fails to establish why they ought not do this, or any objective moral framework for why this is so , other than "it can ruin your voice." They have the freedom to do as they wish even if they are smoking--and you'll note is "source" is nothing more a word, without a link, so we can't even buy that they actually smoke or do alcohol. But even if they do, you are once again weighing freedom to do what you want with your own body over PRO's subjective evaluations of what you should do. Further, as I pointed out and PRO completely drops, this doesn't establish criteria for banning anything--looking at the failure of the Drug War and of Prohibition for evidence that banning anything only pushes it to back alleys, wastes resources on enforcement, and makes it much more dangerous.

PRO says, "I think they are talented, just their lyrics are so bad sometimes."

This is a subjective evaluation, and cannot establish the resolution, unless he genuinely wants the government to ban anything it finds to be, subjectively "bad sometimes," which is nothing short of tyrannical.

PRO says, "They are rude to other celebrities which isn't okay."

First, he provides no evidence for this. Second, again, he makes an "ought" statement without a warrant. Third, he fails to establish how this could possibly justify a ban.

PRO says, "They seem full of themselves."

This is nothing more than a subjective evaluation, and even if it were true, it's likely true of all celebrities, and cannot possibly establish criteria for a ban unless PRO wants to ban ANYONE who "seems" full of themselves. Cross-apply my response to his subjective evaluation on "bad" lyrics.

PRO says, "Also, they don't write their own songs. What real band/group wouldn't?"

First, he provides no evidence, so you disregard this. Second, he fails to establish why, even if this were true, it were undesirable to have writers or why that justifies "not being a real band." Again, this constitutes nothing more than a subjective evaluation.

PRO then goes on to make an argument about "fans threatening people." This is ludicrous because (1) he provides no evidence, so you disregard it outright; (2) he provides no reason to think this is indicative of all fans, so he commits a fallacy of composition by extrapolating from "some" to "all"; and (3) he fails to provide a reason as to why One Direction is responsible for any activity by their fans, or why that means that they ought to be banned. You don't punish a band for what their fans to. That's akin to arresting any artist whatsoever because a mass murderer happened to like them--you're not going after the actual culprit.

PRO goes on to criticize One Direction's songs--note that this criticism, even if warranted, does not justify a ban, because a free market solution, as my contentions (dropped), suggest, can handle this. If 1D were as bad as PRO says, and people only listen to them for their faces (for which there is no evidence), people would stop listening to them as they age or would eventually get tired of them, in which case their music would no longer exist in Asia. This also applies to other artists, who will rise over time as One Direction wanes in popularity, if in fact they are as bad as PRO claims they are. His remarks on this are all entirely subjective--even if it were true that their songs "cater to teenage girls," and we have no reason to think that this alone is the case, there is absolutely no harm in having a target market. Further, his claim that One Direction "rips off other aritsts" is completely unwarranted and, once again, libel--so you disregard it.

PRO says, "Virtually every One Direction song says "I love you, let's kiss! You're so pretty!", and they are filled with unnecessary "ooohs" and "yeahs". Their songs consist of the same simple chord progressions, and they make millions just because they bat their eyelashes at empty-headed girls with money to burn. Every one of their songs has the same theme, and they are completely incapable of creating anything original or memorable, and they have only managed to last so long because of their looks."

Even if this were true--and, again, we have no reason to think that it's anything more than a hyperbolic, highly subjective evaluation of their music--then the free market will ultimately determine that One Direction is undesirable, and thus their popularity will wane. This does not, in any way, justify banning them, lest we end up with all the consequences that I discuss in my opening contentions and that PRO completely drops. PRO says, "If they were ugly and made that music, no one would like them." In what way does looking good justify being banned or censored by the government of any country? This remark is completely off-base and ludicrous.

PRO says, "Smoking and Drinking is bad for you, no matter what we're talking about. Do you want fans to do the same thing they do? No."

He is making an objective claim without any evidence or an optimal moral framework--this is nothing more than a subjective valuation of "ought" that doesn't contain a single warrant, or justify a banning in the slightest, via my earlier on Prohibition.

Second, even if it were true that the members of One Direction ought not be role models, this does not justify *banning* them. Being a role model is not, and will never be, a precondition for recording music or exercising freedom of speech rights.

PRO says, "Listening to One Direction will make you adopt Colonial Mentality. You will rather listen to them than your own songs. Like, really?"

This is nothing more than a subjective evaluartion, and he provides us with no reason to think that you can't listen to both One Direction and to your own songs.



Conclusion

All of my arguments were dropped, so I extend them along with my case that we ought to weigh freedom of speech above subjective valuations.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
Nyctasha

Pro

Nyctasha forfeited this round.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by CentristX 2 years ago
CentristX
NyctashaResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 Checkmark1 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: I can't believe this is a serious debate LOL Points go to Con for conduct and convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by MLG_Pingu 2 years ago
MLG_Pingu
NyctashaResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
NyctashaResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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: FF.