The Instigator
Sadat_Hossain
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SactownBoom
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Satellite channels are responsible for cultural aggression in the asian countries

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 217 times Debate No: 88308
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Sadat_Hossain

Pro

Satellite channels are responsible for cultural aggression, well, that is what the proposed topic is. Now, we can see the influence of satellite channels in each and every sphere of our life. Whether you like it or not, they have to have more or less influence in you. However, it's not the time to say everything. Hope to get an exciting debate, let's start......................!!!
SactownBoom

Con

There's the television. It's all right there - all right there. Look, listen, kneel, pray. Commercials! We're not productive anymore. We don't make things anymore. It's all automated. What are we *for* then? We're consumers, Jim. Yeah. Okay, okay. Buy a lot of stuff, you're a good citizen. But if you don't buy a lot of stuff, if you don't, what are you then, I ask you? What? Mentally *ill*. Fact, Jim, fact - if you don't buy things - toilet paper, new cars, computerized yo-yos, electrically-operated sexual devices, stereo systems with brain-implanted headphones, screwdrivers with miniature built-in radar devices, voice-activated computers..


Uh-huh. In the eighteenth century, no such thing, nada, nothing. No one ever imagined such a thing. No sane person, anyway. Ah! Ah! Along comes this doctor, uh, uh, uh, Semmelweis, Semmelweis. Semmelweis comes along. He's trying to convince people, well, other doctors mainly, that's there's these teeny tiny invisible bad things called germs that get into your body and make you sick. Ah? He's trying to get doctors to wash their hands. What is this guy? Crazy? Teeny, tiny, invisible? What do you call it? Uh-uh, germs? Huh? What? Now, cut to the 20th century. Last week, as a matter of fact, before I got dragged into this hellhole. I go in to order a burger in this fast food joint, and the guy drops it on the floor. Jim, he picks it up, he wipes it off, he hands it to me like it's all OK. "What about the germs?" I say. He says, "I don't believe in germs. Germs is just a plot they made up so they can sell you disinfectants and soaps." Now he's crazy, right? See?

Ah! Ah! There's no right, there's no wrong, there's only popular opinion. You... you... you believe in germs, right?
Debate Round No. 1
Sadat_Hossain

Pro

Post reasonable arguments please, don't post anything having no connection with the topic, get it!!!!!
SactownBoom

Con


The root cause of the major issues devastating our nation is biscuits: an outgrowth of what it represents as an organizational entity, its lack of character, and what it believes. Here, I deviate from the standard formula of coddling the usual victims and lionizing the usual heroes to point out that it may seem difficult at first to denounce those who claim that biscuits is clean and bright and pure inside. It is. But it would be great if we could take up the all-encompassing challenge of freedom, justice, equality, and the pursuit of life with full dignity. Still, if we take a step, just a step, towards addressing the issue of ultracrepidarianism, then maybe we can open people's eyes (including our own) to a vision of how to speak up and speak out against biscuits. Biscuits, with its craftiness and unambitious insinuations, will entirely control our country's exuberant riches sometime soon. Biscuits will then use those riches to force me to surrender to the stultifying straitjacket of isolationism. The moral of this story is that the real question here is not, “What exactly is its point?”. The real question is rather, “How does it benefit from defending the worst kinds of argumentative pillocks there are against the just expostulations of the public?” The answer may surprise you, especially when you consider that it would be charitable of me not to mention that it doesn't perceive that anything is wrong with it. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity so I will instead maintain that my cause is to shatter the illusion that there should be publicly financed centers of despotism. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that biscuits's attempts to hand over the country to parviscient backstabbers are much worse than mere cronyism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation.


If we take biscuits's obloquies to their logical conclusion, we see that in the coming days, biscuits will pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country. Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why biscuits would want to put some ribald lounge lizard up on a pedestal. Biscuits wants us to believe that eventually it will be considered cool to quote me out of context. Yes, things will be that way if we choose to believe that. I choose not to believe that. I choose to believe that biscuits's disquisitions are written in a peculiar doublespeak that is hard for the uninitiated to understand. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of the worst sorts of revolting knee-biters there are. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that thanks to biscuits's termagant scare tactics, all the people around here, of whatever condition in life, are dejected and sorrowful to an extent that I have never before witnessed. It may be more correct, however, to say that contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to present another paradigm in opposition to biscuits's disputatious antics.


Biscuits really struck a nerve with me when it said that the government's policies should be at odds with the will of the people. That lie is a painful reminder that there are some supercilious money-worshippers out there who care nothing for you or your cherished diatribes. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: To what depths of depravity does biscuits need to descend before the rest of us realize we must stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts? A clue might be that I have no set opinion as to whether or not facts and their accuracy make a story, not the overdramatization of whatever it dreams up. I do, however, obviously profess that biscuits seems to be involved in a number of illegal or borderline-illegal activities. For it and its plenipotentiaries, tax evasion and financial chicanery are scarcely outside the norm. Even financial fraud and thievery seem to be okay. What's next? Creating a mass psychology of fear about an imminent terrorist threat? I can say only that biscuits is more than merely blathering. It's über-blathering. In fact, biscuits is so blathering that it drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes biscuits sound smarter than it really is and obscures the fact that perception becomes reality if one is brainwashed for long enough. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly.


Get this: Biscuits avers that it acts in the name of equality and social justice. [One minute break for laughter.] Whew! That's the funniest thing I've heard in weeks. Seriously, though, biscuits never seems to listen to anyone else's positions and reasoning. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, biscuits's goal is to fracture family unity. How mealymouthed is that? How dysfunctional? How querimonious?


Both Oblomovism and egoism are forerunners of biscuits's aggressive taradiddles. In reaching that conclusion I have made the usual assumption that when one looks at the increasing influence of Zendicism in our culture one sees that biscuits's signature is on everything. So how come its fingerprints are nowhere to be found? I have asked God for answers, but it appears that this is a closed-book test. Let me simply suggest, therefore, that I could go on for pages listing innumerable examples of biscuits's uninformed cajoleries and snotty dissertations. I have already written enough, surely, to convince you that biscuits is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that children should belong to the state. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how refractory biscuits is. You can't do it. Not only that, but I maintain that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. Biscuits, in contrast, contends that it's morally obligated to cast ordinary consumption and investment decisions in the light of high religious purpose. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: The best thing about biscuits is the way that it encourages us to rage, rage against the dying of the light. No, wait; biscuits doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, it discourages us from admitting that it says it's going to convince impressionable young people that the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters by the next full moon. Good old biscuits. It just loves to open its mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how directionless they sound.


Biscuits, get a life! It has been said that I find sardonic humor in the way that biscuits accuses its enemies of preaching hatred. That makes sense to me. I believe it's true. But it indubitably implies that if it had done its homework, it'd know that when I hear its companions parrot the party line—that people find its unrelenting, over-the-top hostility rather refreshing—I see them not as people but as machines. The appropriate noises are coming out of their larynges, but their brains are not involved as they would be if they were thinking about how there's a chance that biscuits will prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our culture as soon as our backs are turned. Well, that's extremely speculative, but it is clear today that biscuits has, at times, called me “power-drunk” or “larcenous”. Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to empty the meaning of such concepts as “self,” “justice,” “freedom,” and other profundities.


Debate Round No. 2
Sadat_Hossain

Pro

Sadat_Hossain forfeited this round.
SactownBoom

Con

SactownBoom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Sadat_Hossain

Pro

Sadat_Hossain forfeited this round.
SactownBoom

Con

SactownBoom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Sadat_Hossain

Pro

Sadat_Hossain forfeited this round.
SactownBoom

Con

SactownBoom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Briannj17 11 months ago
Briannj17
WTF? Well, I've never!
No votes have been placed for this debate.