The Instigator
fiza0529
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
DarthKirones
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Reality Shows Are Harmful

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...
DarthKirones
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 535 times Debate No: 70872
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

fiza0529

Pro

Watching reality shows with lots of what's called relational aggression " bullying, exclusion and manipulation " can make people more aggressive in their real lives.

"We knew from past research that people who see relational aggression in media tend to become more aggressive," he explains to Tess Vigeland, guest host of NPR's weekends on All Things Considered. "Gossiping and nastiness is prevalent on these shows, so we wanted to find out whether it affected how aggressive people were after they watched."

After they watched one episode, people were asked to do a separate task that measured aggression. The goal was to hit a keyboard button as quickly as possible. Participants believed they were racing against someone in another room and whoever won would get to blast the other person with a loud, shrill sound.

Gibson and his team took notes on how long participants wanted to blast the sound and how loud they turned the volume up. "It turns out those who had watched Jersey Shore or Real Housewives actually gave louder, longer blasts after watching those shows than those who watched the more violent crime dramas," he says.

Gibson is quick to point out that these findings are not a reason to censor what television content makes it on air. But, he says, it's probably worth taking note if you're a parent. "This is one form of media that may appear harmless, but I think our research provides a little bit of evidence that there can be some negative outcomes as well," he says.
DarthKirones

Con

First of all, this argument is completely plagiarized. Con gave no credit to the source (Which I have found.)

http://www.npr.org...

Plagiarism, especially in a debate, is not acceptable. Crediting a source, and building your argument off that source is alright if you credit your source, but using the source as your argument, and even worse not crediting the source itself? That alone should be enough to cause you to lose this debate, but I will point out the holes in your argument anyways.

"After they watched one episode, people were asked to do a separate task that measured aggression. The goal was to hit a keyboard button as quickly as possible. Participants believed they were racing against someone in another room and whoever won would get to blast the other person with a loud, shrill sound.

Gibson and his team took notes on how long participants wanted to blast the sound and how loud they turned the volume up. "It turns out those who had watched Jersey Shore or Real Housewives actually gave louder, longer blasts after watching those shows than those who watched the more violent crime dramas,"

Apparently, some people call this aggression. Y' know what I call it? Human behavior.

Humans are animals. This is a fact. When one animal dominates the other, they often celebrate, as do humans. Let's take Canada's victory in ice hockey in the 2010 Winter Olympics as an example. In the link I am about to provide, please skip to 2:15:30 for the time.

https://www.youtube.com...

In that video was the final hockey match between Canada and the USA. At the time I asked you to go to, the winning goal was scored. Immediately, the team celebrates. They celebrate themselves and the fact that they won. They were clearly happy over beating someone else, over showing that they are the superior. While yes, they did go on to shake their hands and were good sportsmen, but still, they were very happy. This isn't unique to the Canadian Men's hockey team, no. Humans do this all the time. When A person wins a one dollar bet, something as small as one dollar, they will feel pretty dominant. When you win a board game, you're gonna feel a wave of happiness. This is human behavior. Celebrating is an animalistic side of human behavior. So is you win a race like you described, of course you're gonna hold it for longer! You've just won! You are superior! That is just how our brains are wired.

Second, you and this article seem to think that because a few people acted aggressive, the same logic apples to ALL 7 billion people on the planet. Science shows us that the same thing never happens twice. Event B may be similar to Event A, maybe only one minor thing was changed, but that doesn't make event A and B to be the same. Each human is unique and will react differently to victory. Even if Reality Shows cause aggression (Which it doesn't, as I just proved), it would only cause aggression in SOME people. Not all. The results of this study does not define all of society.

Finally, the same study that was done has been repeated over and over and over, video games and countless other things.

"Annual trends in video game sales for the past 33 years were unrelated to violent crime both concurrently and up to four years later. Unexpectedly, monthly sales of video games were related to concurrent decreases in aggravated assaults and were unrelated to homicides. Searches for violent video game walkthroughs and guides were also related to decreases in aggravated assaults and homicides two months later. Finally, homicides tended to decrease in the months following the release of popular M-rated violent video games."

"Finding that a young man who committed a violent crime also played a popular video game, such as Call of Duty, Halo, or Grand Theft Auto, is as pointless as pointing out that the criminal also wore socks." {1}

This is my point. While this specific article is about video games, the same logic can apply to reality shows. Just because a show has people being obnoxious, aggressive jerks doesn't make people who watch them the same. A person who watched a show held a button for a while. So what? As my source said, it's as pointless as pointing out the persons socks.

Thanks for this debate, and giving me a chance to debate after 7 months.

Vote con.

{1} http://www.gamespot.com...
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheAdamb99 1 year ago
TheAdamb99
fiza0529DarthKironesTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided more reliable resources and gave an all round better argument/response
Vote Placed by Daktoria 1 year ago
Daktoria
fiza0529DarthKironesTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument is that reality shows are harmful. Con makes an analogy with victory that doesn't apply because a viewer of reality shows isn't victorious. He then makes an argument about methodology, and while that can be applicable, it ignores the limits of investigating behavior among the diversity of humanity. Lastly, Con makes a comparison to video games which isn't the point since pro's argument isn't about whether reality shows are more harmful than anything. Likewise, Con responds about whether viewers are the same as those being viewed, but Pro's argument isn't about that either. Pro's argument is very simple, but ultimately, Con's response just beat around the bush. That said, no, Pro shouldn't have plagiarized.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 1 year ago
dynamicduodebaters
fiza0529DarthKironesTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, I am VERY disappointed. Definitely don't plagiarize, it is almost a certain victory for the other side. Con, good job finding out that pro did, and not stop just there. You then teared pro's arguments down even though they where plagiarized.