The Instigator
Spedman
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Tommy.leadbetter
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Russell Brand Is an Immature Buffoon With Unrealisitc Idealogies

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 2 votes the winner is...
Spedman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,196 times Debate No: 59983
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

Spedman

Pro

While I do not like Fox News, Russell Brand's criticism of the network is laughably idiotic. When he commented on the opening statement of Judge Jeanine Pirro when she said "ISIS is a fanatical religious terrorist organization". Those words were as accurate as it gets in referring to ISIS. Russell Brand said then that "Fox News is fanatical terrorist organization and is more dangerous than ISIS". He even went on to compare the Judge to Hitler and Goebbels.
Now let me ask you something: Is that a fair accusation? I think that is a very slanderous, unrealistic, and idiotic statement considering Fox has never murdered anyone, bombed anything, or opted for the genocide of people they didn't like (which is a lot).
Judge Jeanine also said in the statement that given the American people don't want boots on the ground and ISIS is a clear threat to Americans that the only viable option is to bomb them with aircraft. Now someone with common sense and a brain would see this as a realistic and actually smart thing to do considering most of the civilians in the towns and cities controlled by ISIS evacuated.
But no, Russell "Brainless" Brand said "that is the very problem that made ISIS behave this way". Brand seems to forget that ISIS was an al-Qaeda affiliate, the very organization that attacked us on 9/11. Wrong again Russell let's move on.
Recently, Brand criticized Sean Hannity for his Pro-Israeli stance on the current conflict in Gaza. While I think both of them behaved like children on this issue Russell resorted to mimicking Hannity and making fun of the way he looks and talks. I don't understand is he 39 or 6 because that isn't the display of a mature adult. Russell Brand went on to say "we perceive Hamas' actions as terrorist actions is because when they are attacked that is what they resort to". He also said "there is no proof the people in Gaza are being used as human shields".
Okay, Russell let me correct you on a few things first. Hamas is a listed terrorist organization in over a dozen nation including Egypt, Israel's former enemy not to mention Hamas attacked first and broke seven cease-fires. There is video evidence of Hamas rockets behind schools and civilian residential buildings. To intelligent people that is using human shields.
This man clearly doesn't do his research on these issues. He tries so hard to say how the world should be, but he knows nothing about how it works. He supports the legalization of all narcotic drugs including crack-cocaine and heroin. Marijuana is one thing but those other drugs will destroy your life. Brand says that these drugs "don't hurt anyone". I knew a kid in my grade who overdosed on crack-cocaine and died from it so yes it does hurt people because that kid had family and friends who cared about him.
Russell Brand needs to grow up and stop trying to solve the world's problems when he couldn't even solve the problems of a year-long marriage with Katy Perry.
Tommy.leadbetter

Con

So this argument is split into two points. 1. Russell is immature and stupid. 2. His ideologies are unrealistic.

My main point and stance: I will argue that everybody is immature in many, if not most, aspects of their life. But I will argue that the way Russell sees the world, is far from 'immature'. Also I don't believe that Russell has said enough about his ideological vision of the future, to have a substantial debate about. But, non the less, because I like Russell Brands views, I will argue that he is right. But what ideology are you saying is wrong? Could you be more clear so I know what it is you disagree with, so we can have a proper debate.

SIDE NOTE: You make bold statements about interllect and back them up with unsubstantial evidence. A mans intelligence is immaterial, unfathomable, imcomensurable and subjective. Calling someone stupid, is quite a stupid thing to do. It's narrow minded. People have different types of intelligences, and they are not the ones we where taught at school!

You make several arguments amid your rant, attempting to prove your point. will try to organise them:
1. Russell saying that FOX news is like a terrorist organisation, when you believe it is not like a terrorist organisation.
2. You think dropping bombs on this occasion is okay, Russell says its what got us is this mess in the first place.
3. Russel makes a statement about the word terrorists and the idea of Hamas as a terrorist group, you say that Hamas is a terrorist group. Also you think he has his facts mixed up about human shielding.
4.You don't agree with drug legalisation and Russell does.

You say: "While I do not like Fox News, Russell Brand's criticism of the network is laughably idiotic. When he commented on the opening statement of Judge Jeanine Pirro when she said "ISIS is a fanatical religious terrorist organization". Those words were as accurate as it gets in referring to ISIS. Russell Brand said then that "Fox News is fanatical terrorist organization and is more dangerous than ISIS". He even went on to compare the Judge to Hitler and Goebbels.
Now let me ask you something: Is that a fair accusation? I think that is a very slanderous, unrealistic, and idiotic statement considering Fox has never murdered anyone, bombed anything, or opted for the genocide of people they didn't like (which is a lot)."

Your missing the point. Russell's message is that the society we live in is full of contradiction and hypocracy. Fox News has many similarities to the stereotypical terrorist organisation. Indeed it's part of one in the eyes of al-Qaeda and other people's. So to liken Fox News to a terrorist organisation is not completely idiotic. You say Fox News has never murdered anyone (not true, they support the death penalty) you say they have never bombed anyone (they support the war you crazy man) and you you say never opted for genicide (well maybe not in them terms, but it is quite racist and supportive of violent intervention). Also, Russell is likening them to terrorists because he believes in things like drug companies and weapon manufacturers making money of suffering, and he believes that they fund FOX, who in turn help too help cover-up the wickedness. (By cover-up, I don't necessarily mean literally, I mean by encouraging people to be supportive of the status quo and to be nieve and distracted). So if FOX are aiding death and suffering for profit, then that is a similarity to terrorism. Indeed I would go so far to say that the drive for profit could be a less honourable cause than some 'terrorists' causes. But we are getting ahead of ourselves, I'm still trying to drill the point that 'terrorist' is a word used by governments for groups of people (with no recognised government) that are aggressive towards them.

You say that you would agree with the bombing, and you base your argument on facts displayed by one side of the conflict. Bombing is a way to kill, and its not going to kill the regime. It's only going to make the innocent citizens angry and fearful of the US, when they already are fearful of the terrorist group. This will encourage some members to even join with the terrorists. Russell's comment that its what got us in this mess in the first place may not be accurate, I don't know the details, but violent intervention at least excasabates the situation. In fact, Russell is right in a way: The very notion of Mujahideen (or 'struggle' against the 'infidels') was first heard in the West when the British invaded. They where a group of people fighting for their own land against the invaders. Nothing wrong with that I'm sure you will agree. So it was us being violent and disrespectful towards them that caused the conflict, Russell was right. Things have been complicated ever since, how can you make so bold a claim when you know little of these matters? Indeed, if you read all the information available to you, you still would know not what it is like, to experience the lives of these Muslims.

You say Russell is childish for imitating Hamas, perhaps, but humour is often childlike. I don't see why this is so important.

You say, to intelligent people, that's using human shields. Well, not exactly. It's not using human shields in the universal understanding of the word, in some way it's like using human shields, but Russell is right-there is no evidence of them using human shields.

Drug legislation.

Russell is not pro-drug use. He just doesn't think people who get addicted to them, should be punished. Drugs alone are not addictive, it's the person who is the deciding factor. For instance we all shop, go to the gym, work, drink alcohol, try a cigarette, have lovers, and yet don't get addicted. For more information on this watch 'human nature talk' with Robert sapolsky. What Russel is trying to say is that drug abuse is a reflection of a problem with the society, not the drugs or the drug deaelers. As people who get addicted are missing from their life, what the drug offers. What is your stance on drugs?

Your remark about him and Kate not being together anymore reflecting his inability to speak about the world is laughable. I assume its a joke.
Debate Round No. 1
Spedman

Pro

Terrorism means that you use tactics that strike terror into people. Fox News doesn't do that. Even MSNBC can't find someone who says that they are constantly in fear for their life because of Fox News. When I mean by "Fox News never murdered anyone" is that they have never physically murdered another human being. They have never bombed buildings or committed arson. There has never been a news story like "Fox News bombed so-and-so" or "Fox News murdered so-and-so. A belief in something like the death penalty is not murder. It's a belief which means its in your mind and you can't murder someone with your mind. Supporting something and actually committing the action are two very different things. They didn't do it nor were they a part of it they just supported it. I am not going into Afghanistan or the death penalty because they are two different subjects.
President Obama initiated airstrikes against ISIS on Thursday with the promise that no soldiers would set foot in Afghanistan. That is exactly what Judge Jeanine suggested that we do. So is Obama a terrorist too? You and I both know he rarely uses military intervention and I am glad he recognizes ISIS as a threat. Especially when images like this are all over the internet.

http://www.westernjournalism.com...

http://www.catholic.org...

Take a good look at these images, Con. How can you compare Fox News to these awful people who do these things to innocent people especially children? These are crimes against humanity, and this is nothing short of the actions of an animal."Fox News is more dangerous than ISIS" are the words he used. Come on man, use your common sense Fox News has never done anything like this and doesn't support this kind of action. The war in Afghanistan was fought for a good reason to fight people like this. The death penalty is for people who commit these awful atrocities.

Russell Brand literally said that narcotic drugs aren't hurting anyone. I believe only Marijuana should be legalized and I think the jail penalties for drug possession are ridiculous and that no one should go to jail that long for such a very little thing. Drug legalization should be about lowering crime and reducing organized criminals income not about people getting to do more drugs.

The Katy Perry thing was a joke, albeit a really bad one. However, these images above should show just how ignorant Russell Brand is and I hope someone is showing these images to him.
Tommy.leadbetter

Con

Tommy.leadbetter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Spedman

Pro

See Con's argument in the comments section before reading this, please.

Well, since this debate is about Russell Brand making ridiculous statements that have no merit to them I don't think an anti-capitalist view-point is related at all to this debate. Russell Brand is a very wealthy man and is wealthier than many individuals in the U.S and U.K. So if he is fighting against Capitalism that makes him a hypocrite because he made his money off of the system of Capitalism. Fox News is a conservative news network and that is just one viewpoint in society. It is a viewpoint that has been around since governments were just founded.
There is no reason or evidence to believe that Fox News is a terrorist organization. Russell Brand is being childish calling them terrorists and Nazis because Fox News shares none of their views. He needs to grow up and realize that ideals for the most part do not work. He needs to check his facts before he goes wrongfully accusing someone of terrorism.
He knows nothing of what the world is really like outside of his penthouse suite, and he needs to realize that sometimes war is necessary and justifiable to protect ones people.
Tommy.leadbetter

Con

Tommy.leadbetter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
I really wanted to do this debate as well and you have been very reasonable I'm sorry to have let you down mate
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Sorry I got called out to work and. Have missed this. I have wasted too much of. Your time. You can have this debate I sorry for the inconvenience
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
I think what Russell is trying to get across, is that FOX news plays its part in a system that does result in direct human suffering. For instance: if you reduce America to one hundred people, and assume there is resources that we will simplify into currency, say $100, that must be shared amongst all 100 people. Now we would imagine that they would be split evenly into 1 dollor per person. Maybe people who come up with cures for cancer and risk their life to save others could earn more than slakers. Lets say the most productive people get 5dollar each and the least beneficial people get 50p each. Sound fair? Well at the moment in the real world, 1 person takes home $34. 40 people in the lowest category have 20cent to share between them! Bare in mind, these bottom 40 people are still working their arse of a lot of the time, and the man who has it all, is not necessarily beneficial to society at all. For instance, how good for society is McDonald's and fast cars, compared to medical research and technology advancement. McDonald's and fast cars being the gift of the one man, whilst everything good for us being done by others.

This system brings about poverty, poverty results in abuse, death and suffering. FOX news is advanced enough to know this, yet it continues to hold the system in place. So FOX news help to hold millions of people in poverty, and also destroy the earths climate and wild country. The scale in which this it done is unmatchable by ISIS, for it is the greatest superpower that has ever been. So Russell
Posted by Spedman 2 years ago
Spedman
Tommy, look dude I have to post my last argument. I don't mean to be rude, but I really need you to hurry on your argument.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Thank you I will try to be quick as to not waste too much of your time. Points should be deducted.
Posted by Spedman 2 years ago
Spedman
I'll tell you what Tommy, post your argument in the comments and put round #2 at the beginning. I'll make sure people see your argument.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Just written my argument and was reviewing it and my time ran out! How clumsy
Posted by Spedman 2 years ago
Spedman
Okay man, take your time no rush.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
ye don't worry it will come sorry for the wait its a difficult argument to attack. Be here soon.
Posted by Spedman 2 years ago
Spedman
Tommy the reason I am using the comments is because it won't let me message you, and I don't mean to rush but I am still waiting on your argument. Just reminding you that time is almost up.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
SpedmanTommy.leadbetterTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
SpedmanTommy.leadbetterTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture