The Instigator
pcmbrown
Pro (for)
Winning
75 Points
The Contender
JonathanSmits
Con (against)
Losing
61 Points

Pokeban

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 22 votes the winner is...
pcmbrown
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,521 times Debate No: 7842
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (22)

 

pcmbrown

Pro

Resolved: Pokemon should be removed from Cartoon Network.

Pokemon: The series of anime movies and television episodes licensed by the Pokemon media franchise

Should: Ought to

Removed from: No longer aired by

Cartoon Network: The cable television network Cartoon Network, broadcast in the United States

1.The characters on Pokemon frequently capture a variety of so-called "Pokemon", some of which are extremely rare. It seems to be the objective of all Pokemon trainers to do this at every opportunity. Rare Pokemon are the most desired, and the most frequently captured. This is clearly would be considered an act of illegal poaching in today's society.
2.They allow the Pokemon from their prisons only on rare occasions for the purpose of "Pokemon battles". These battles involve pitched combat between two Pokemon, ending only when one passes out. During the struggle, Pokemon use any means at their disposal in order to emerge victorious. This does not reflect the natural behavior of Pokemon. In the wild, they appear to be non-predatory. They fight infrequently, and never between species. The trainers, through their battles, are perverting the Pokemon's nature. This is a form of animal abuse, much akin to dog fighting.
3.Not only does Pokemon exhibit poaching and animal abuse. It actively promotes them. Those who commit these acts are viewed as "heroes". In fact, the primary manner in which social standing is achieved is through the collection of rare Pokemon, and success in Pokemon battles.
4.Cartoon Network and the show Pokemon have a target audience almost entirely composed of young children. These young minds are being corrupted by Pokemon's influence, which teaches them that poaching, dog fighting, and animal abuse are heroic acts. This will lead to a perverted world outlook. In addition, children will be inclined to imitate the Pokemon characters, their heroes, and develop a tendency to abuse their pets.
JonathanSmits

Con

I would like to start out by saying this argument its completely ridiculous.
This is like saying kids who watched Dragon Ball Z, spiked their hair, lit themselves on fire and shot roman candles at each other. I watched Dragon Ball Z and am only guilty of one of those, spiking my hair.

Being a Pokemon watcher as a young child, I can attest that in no way do I abuse my pets or try to poach rare animals.
There is a big difference between Pokemon and animals, and even bigger difference between the Pokemon Series and Real Life.

You state catching rare Pokemon in todays society would be illegal poaching. First of all, Pokemon do not exist, and secondly, you are assuming it would be illegal.

For your second point, I am assuming by "prisons" you mean Pokeballs.
Prison - any place of confinement or involuntary restraint. Direct quote from http://dictionary.reference.com...
When catching a Pokemon, they may be involuntarily caught, but after being captured they are perfectly content. Making the Pokeballs a home and not prison.

Pokemon is a kids TV show and children do realize the difference between Pikachu and their family pet.
Debate Round No. 1
pcmbrown

Pro

I'd first like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

1.Your comparison to Dragon Ball Z: This comparison is entirely illegitimate. The acts committed in Pokemon closely parallel criminal poaching and animal abuse. Those committed in Dragon Ball Z (excepting ridiculous hairstyles) in no way reflect events which occur in the real-world. Therefore, the comparison is a fallacy.
2.a. Your experience with Pokemon does not necessarily reflect that of all children. Those who are, perhaps, heavily disturbed, or less intelligent than yourself would be more inclined to imitate the abusive behavior found in Pokemon.
b. Pokemon closely resemble animals, in appearance, and in behavior.
3.Yes, Pokemon do not exist. I am merely stating that the actions of Pokemon trainers, in our society, would be considered criminal. Children are inclined to imitate the actions of their heroes, fictional or no, which many of them perceive Pokemon trainers to be.
4."When catching a Pokemon, they may be involuntarily caught, but after being captured they are perfectly content."
a. This seems to fit your definition of prison. Pokeballs are indeed place of confinement, however comfortable.
b. You fail to warrant the Pokemon's degree of content. It would be rational to assume that a capsule, the volume of which is less than a Pokemon's physical size, would be very uncomfortable.
5. I uphold that Pokemon trainers commit the despicable acts of animal abuse and
poaching. Our children are negatively affected by exposure to this material.
JonathanSmits

Con

I would like to address the point made about the size of Pokemon and Pokeballs. If it is possible for Pokemon to possess super powers and talk, I believe it is very possible for the Pokemon to be shrunken down to fit in the Pokeballs. comfortably, with room for a bed and food supply perhaps!

I do not know how happy the Pokemon is because I am not allowed in Pokeballs, due to Rule 32.

Although some heavily disturbed children or unintelligent children do exist, they do not reflect children in general so, we will assume the Pokemon audience is of fit and stable mind.

My comparison to Dragon Ball Z was relevant due to the fact both are MAKE-BELIEF FANTASY WORLDS.
Debate Round No. 2
pcmbrown

Pro

Pokeballs: As my opponent provides no actual warrants as to the comfort of Pokeballs, it must be assumed that their small size and rigid casing contribute to discomfort. Thus Pokeballs are not only a prison, but an exceedingly unpleasant one.

Disturbed Children: No, we will not assume that the Pok�mon audience is of fit and stable mind. Even if these disturbed children compose a mere 1 percent of the population, this 1 percent will still be inclined to commit cruel acts against animals.

Dragon Ball Z: Yes, both are fantasy worlds, but the realism of acts committed in either world is vastly different. As I have said, Dragon Ball Z consists largely of ridiculous, and exceedingly strange battles. Pok�mon presents the real world acts of poaching and animal abuse, and additionally, portrays them in a positive light.

My opponent has not refuted the influence which Pok�mon has upon children. Therefore, this argument stands: Exposing young children to a television show which espouses such acts will ultimately lead some of them to commit acts of animal abuse, and hold perverse world views.

Finally, my opponent presents little more than defensive arguments, with no actual contentions of his own. Therefore, my impacts vastly outweigh his nonexistent ones.

I stand in firm Proposition of this resolution. Thank you for reading.
JonathanSmits

Con

Final Statement,

No matter how hard I may have bombed this ridiculous debate, my opponent is still debating Pokemon making him a loser no matter what the outcome is.

We will not assume that the child audience is of fit and stable mind, but the majority is, a vast majority IF only %1 percent is troubled. Just because 1% of children may take Pokemon the wrong way, does not mean it needs to be banned. It means 1% of Pokemon viewers parents need to censor and watch over what programming children are watching. If they find Pokemon unsuitable for their children, it is just a channel click away to keep them safe.

Assuming that children watching Pokemon will " ultimately lead some of them to commit acts of animal abuse, and hold perverse world views." is just an assumption, and there is no Pokemon related animal abuse crimes as examples.

My opponents debate is based on his opinion and how he interprets the Pokemon show, which is not a valid source of info
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mickey8701 6 years ago
mickey8701
I'm disappointed in the outcome of the debate. JonathanSmits did state a valid point at the end; the "winner" did not have any evidence to back up his/her claims. It's easy to make claims about the effect of a show on a child, but where was to evidence to back up the claims? The constant mentioning of the mental state of a child? A mentally disturbed child doesn't need a show to incite it to violence. Furthermore, it's been seen in the anime, that pokeballs do not "confine" pokemon, but instead captures their spirits. The freedom of the pokemon is constantly stressed in the anime, and abuse of pokemon is touched on and condemned. It also constantly mentions how the pokemon fight to protect their owners, but also for healthy competition. Pokemon do not bleed, or are maimed in any way during battle.

Though con could have done better, the pro's argument was weak and could have easily been broken down.
Posted by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
Sorry about that
Posted by crenel 8 years ago
crenel
Continuing my point, it has been mentioned many times not only in the Anime series but throughout the entire Pokemon Franchise as a whole that all Pokemon are in fact part of the same animal. The variations between different species are wide and numerous, but at the root they are all one and the same. This explains how Pokemon are able to breed with other Pokemon of entirely different types and appearances, such as a Skitty having the ability to mate with a Wailord. This fact should also drive home the point that the series itself is in fact fiction and is based off of a world in which imaginary creatures are real.

Previously the instigator stated that Pokemon are required to battle until exhaustion or pain overwhelms them and causes them to faint. This is an entirely false statement, and in many situations during the Anime series it is shown that pushing a Pokemon too hard during battle is looked down upon. An example would be the numerous occasions in which Ash's Pikachu has become ill after over-exerting itself and the occasion where Ash allowed his Treecko to battle to the point where it legitimately did pass out. All of these occurrences resulted in Ash being scolded for his reckless and uncaring behavior, which enforces the idea that animal abuse is not something children should partake in. In many situations, it is shown that a Pokemon loses a battle after a judge determines that it is no longer safe for a Pokemon to compete or a Pokemon concedes defeat. More often than not a battle in the Anime can end after a simple status effect puts the creature into harm's way, such as falling asleep or confusion befalling the Pokemon.

Both the instigator and the contender have provided childish and misinformed arguments for and against this particular series' continuation. However, since it is obvious that the instigator has not fully researched his topic, I give my vote to the contender. In the future, both parties would do well to fully research their topic.
Posted by crenel 8 years ago
crenel
To elaborate on my previous statements, the claim that Pokemon are forced to battle or join a trainer through capture is shown in the Anime series and the games alike to be a matter of individual personality. For example, several trainers through the series (including the overall majority of the main characters) catch their Pokemon after the Pokemon first agrees to either battle the trainer to prove their worth, or the Pokemon itself willingly enters the trainer's ball. Examples of this include Ash capturing his Treecko after a battle, and James catching his Cacnea, who willingly entered James' ball after the trainer previously offered the Pokemon a snack (cookies). There are several instances in which a trainer captures a Pokemon against its will (such as poachers or trainers who care more for power than about the creatures), but in each instance that this occurs the party in question is always looked down upon and portrayed in a negative light. From this alone it is very obvious that the show is attempting to teach children that animal cruelty is wrong.

The claim that Pokemon are naturally peaceful and/or never compete between individuals of the same species is also entirely flawed. In fact there are many occasions in which it is shown that Ariados, a large spider-like Pokemon, actively feeds upon smaller Bug-type Pokemon such as Caterpie, Wurmple, and Weedle, all of which are based off of a form of larval-stage, winged insect. There are also many comments attesting towards Pokemon such as Pidgeot and Feraligatr actively feeding on Water-type Pokemon such as Goldeen and Magikarp. To elaborate more on the fact that Pokemon are portrayed to squabble amongst their peers, there are several scenarios in which certain Pokemon, such as Rhyhorn and Meowth/Persian, compete over resources such as food, territory and mating rights.
Posted by crenel 8 years ago
crenel
To completely understand the circumstances behind this debate, both the instigator and contender should consider delving into slightly more advanced research. As it currently stands, neither one has presented a strong argument for or against the topic.

To begin with, the theory that Pokemon are "enslaved" or "confined" within their capsules is entirely incorrect. Stated several times not only in the television show itself but also the video game and manga/graphic novel series' behind the television show in question, when a Pokemon is stored within its ball it is converted into energy matter, in which the Pokemon is allowed to rest and is sustained by unexplained means. The facts concerning how a Pokemon within its ball is sustained are never explained, nor do they need to be as it is done using an imaginary technology that does not exist within our own world.

There are several instances in which a Pokemon may live for years, even decades, within its capsule before emerging again entirely intact and in perfect condition as is portrayed several times during the Anime series. This is most notably shown in a particular situation where one of the main characters, James, returns to one of his childhood homes and finds a Carnivine that has existed within its Pokeball for nearly a decade. When it emerges, it acts as though James himself never left and is in prime condition, the same as it was years ago. From this knowledge it can be assumed that a Pokemon may comfortably reside within a Pokeball at any given point in time and for seemingly any imaginable duration.

To add on to this, several other arguments are nullified by events that occur during the series. For example, the claim that Pokemon are forced to battle against their will is entirely flawed, as in most cases it is the Pokemon themselves that wish to do battle. Pokemon develop rivalries with other trainers' Pokemon and strive to prove they are in fact the prime, alpha example of their specific "species".
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
I was asked to read this by a source outside myself. While I know little about Pokemon and care little for it (hence tying on matters of content), I think calling the Pro a "loser" for starting a debate on a very popular television show is out of line, and violates the TOS of the site. I think the Con is a perfectly adequate debater, and didn't need to resort to that in order to win, as is showed by the points total. Too bad...
Posted by Tiberius 8 years ago
Tiberius
The crucial problem with this argument is the non-validity of the evidence and specifically the inferance(technical rhetoric term). The quotes "This is clearly would be considered an act of illegal poaching in today's society" and "This is a form of animal abuse, much akin to dog fighting" are rendered invalid with the fact that "Pokemon" are NOT animals, and have never been referred to as "animals" through out the long history of the show. The word "Pokemon" is Japanese and is derived from the name "Pocket Monster" in which was the name of a popular predecessor to the Pokemon series http://en.wikipedia.org... . So in light of this claim it is clear "Pokemon" were never indented to be perceived as a type of animal, but in fact a type of "pocket monster" in which is out side the scope of any sort of animal abuse claim. But not only does this render the evidence of this argument non-valid, but it questions the validity of the inferrance as well. The inferrance being a technical term used to describe the linking peice of an argument betwean the evidence and the claim and hence the inferrance in this argument "Not only does Pokemon exhibit poaching and animal abuse. It actively promotes them." is invalid as well. And as you know an argument fails to be" Prima Facia"(latin, meaning it basically does not "hold any water")
without valid evidence, warrant, and inferrance.

- Good day sirs
Posted by JonathanSmits 8 years ago
JonathanSmits
aha someone just discovered the jokeeee ;)
Posted by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
alright, but note that u were debating Pokemon 2
Posted by JonathanSmits 8 years ago
JonathanSmits
likewise :P and pcm.

dont take any of the debate offensively, i just like to poke a little fun in my debates :)
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by PostInsanity 8 years ago
PostInsanity
pcmbrownJonathanSmitsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Marine1 8 years ago
Marine1
pcmbrownJonathanSmitsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by crenel 8 years ago
crenel
pcmbrownJonathanSmitsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Lazy 8 years ago
Lazy
pcmbrownJonathanSmitsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by LuxEtVeritas 8 years ago
LuxEtVeritas
pcmbrownJonathanSmitsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:70 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
pcmbrownJonathanSmitsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by sorc 8 years ago
sorc
pcmbrownJonathanSmitsTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JonathanSmits 8 years ago
JonathanSmits
pcmbrownJonathanSmitsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Epicism 8 years ago
Epicism
pcmbrownJonathanSmitsTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
pcmbrownJonathanSmitsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:70