The Instigator
TheShadeM
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SnaxAttack
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Pokemon Promotes Animal Abuse in Children

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 1 vote the winner is...
SnaxAttack
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 374 times Debate No: 82612
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

TheShadeM

Pro

This is a short debate. You have 12 hours to argue and only 1000 chars.

I am for the motion that Pokemon promotes animal abuse in children. As you know, Pokemon is a franchise which depicts human trainers using animals to fight each other. The animals fight and the trainers get the reputation, prize money etc. Pokemon is largely targeted to audience of lower than 12 years. At this growing age, they are very susceptible to influence from the things they watch, play and read. Any adult person can tell you how kids today are becoming more violent. Cartoons play a large part in this and this includes Pokemon.

Yes, I know opposition will probably argue that adults should regulate kids TV programs etc. The thing is people just readily accept that Pokemon is for kids but they fail to recognize how much it is encouraging them to see animals as just something to play around with and to be used for our desires of entertainment.
SnaxAttack

Con

I will argue that Pokemon does not cause animal abuse to children.

Firstly, I like to please bring up a statistic about the fanbase of Pokemon. Stated by "Pokemon's Audience Growing Older" (1), it states that Pokemon's players are more adults than children. That is way different, and have a majority of them commited animal abuse? No, they are just nerds, like myself, who play a game because they want to. After they played it, have any of them became animal abusers? No, in fact players actually learned to care and treat animals more (2). Just because someone plays a game does not make them already a evil individual.

1. http://www.siliconera.com...
2. https://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
TheShadeM

Pro

Thank you for accepting.

Rebuttals: My opponent says that the fan base is getting older. He brings up his evidence. Of course the fanbase is getting older since the generation which was first to receive Pokemon is getting older. My opponent says these adults are not doing violent acts. I feel this is outside the scope of the debate. We are talking about the kids not the adults. My opponent needs to limit his argument only to the kids audience.

Then he says just cause someone plays a game doesn't make them evil. Um? We are not discussing about judging someone on what they play. I was arguing that the game or show does affect kids at a subsconsious level. It is not easy to measure this influence merely based on "hard facts".

My next argument is that all games or shows have a consent age where it is generally deemed to be safe. However for Pokemon we need to raise this age bar because kids are heavily susceptible to the subsconscious attacks of media including Pokemon.

Thank you
SnaxAttack

Con

I will post my opponents statements in italics and rebuttal against them

Of course the fanbase is getting older since the generation which was first to receive Pokemon is getting older. My opponent says these adults are not doing violent acts. I feel this is outside the scope of the debate. We are talking about the kids not the adults.

In this statement, my opponent agrees that those who have played Pokemon are older. My opponent argues how this isn't part of the debate, when it is. Those who have played Pokemon have not commited any animal abuse, and the same goes to children who play the game.

Then he says just cause someone plays a game doesn't make them evil. Um? We are not discussing about judging someone on what they play.

Actually we are because the topic for this debate states "Pokemon Promotes Animal Abuse in Children". Have any of these kids commited animal abuse? No they have not, and leans towards the Con side that children do not commit any animal abuse after Pokemon.
Debate Round No. 2
TheShadeM

Pro

With all due respect to my opponent, the way he says it is as if he has personally seen every single person who has played Pokemon have not committed any animal abuse.

How do you measure that? If a person derives pleasure just by seeing animals getting hurt, wouldn't you say that he or she has been influenced by the shows they watch too? Essentially, what I am saying is just because you don't see the headlines in the news doesn't mean people have not been affected by some way.

It could very well be that we are all so used to this animal violence that it has become normal for us. Bull-fights, cockfights, keeping fishes in aquariums, keeping pets. To me, all these can lean towards animal abuse because we have mislead ourselves into thinking that we are caring for the animals when in fact, we have and will continue to strip them of their natural habitats, behaviour etc. This silent attack on our subconscious is done by the things we play and watch and we should not deny that.

Thank you
SnaxAttack

Con

For the final round, I will do one more major rebuttal and conclude this debate.

My opponent mainly states that Pokemon does cause animal abuse with the following quote: "Essentially, what I am saying is just because you don't see the headlines in the news doesn't mean people have not been affected by some way". Well if no headlines are seen, that makes your argument faulty because there is no evidence that Pokemon influences children for animal abuse.

In fact, video games really don't cause violence at all (1).

To conclude the debate, my opponent makes many claims but fails to provide evidence for any of these claims. He never really proved on how pokemon causes children to start animal abuse. He really did not rebuttal any of my past statements, and in the final round he doesn't talk about the topic on hand but more of a generalization. If the topic was different, it would work but its not.

vote Con!

Source:
1. http://www.independent.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by breakingamber 1 year ago
breakingamber
TheShadeMSnaxAttackTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used more proffessional writing style and did not "state irrelevancy" or do something dumb like that. He also did not insult his opponent, and used correct grammar and whatnot. He was also the only one to site his sources. Pro, on the other hand, mostly argued that Con was "arguing incorrectly". I have to say this argument goes to Con.