Should 3rd graders and younger be allowed to watch the news?
Debate Rounds (3)
Kind regards for this Debate.
I will be representing the Pro side, meaning that I will present the argument that 3rd graders and younger should be allowed to watch the news.
I will define 3rd graders as children aged around 8 to 9 years old, calculated through the age at which children start school in the US (and the majority of western countries).
Children should intake news, whether it be reading, or, as in this case, watch the news.
Watching the news is obviously more accessible for children, as watching them involves less effort than reading.
To mention, there are children appropriate news outlets and news made especially for children, which means that as such Cons argument of "crap is being put on the news" is not a real issue.
Besides, the said 'crap' are the news. Which is what is going on in the world, the country or the local community. It is important for society to be informed about such things. Otherwise, one is clearly not involved in the society which they are part of. As such, this is a clear disadvantage. And judging from the increasing number of individuals who have no clue about any current issues or basically anything, this is a serious problem. This quora page is kind of expressing my point, as many individuals can see and are concerned about what I am expressing here as well (https://www.quora.com...). As such, a child that is willing to be informed and inform themselves is actually a positive thing. The more individuals who are informed about what is happening around them, the better. The age does not really matter.
The issue is that individuals should be informed about what is going on in the world. Children are included in this.
In fact, it is very important for children to be involved, as 'shutting them out' will not benefit them in any way, shape or form.
As Con provided a personal example, I will provide one myself.
When I was in second grade, the attacks on the September 11 attacks happened. As such I most definitely was in the age group which is in the focus of this debate.
As a child, as now, I was an avid news watcher and reader of the newspaper, and as such was and am quite well informed about a broad range of issues. And things that shook the world happened over and over. Whether it be 9/11, the 2004 Christmas Tsunami, the Iraq war, many civil wars and other things happening. Learning and knowing about these things as a child did nothing but benefit me.
I was never worried about issues, as I knew how unlikely it was that they would affect me.
My fathers employment did and still does involve a lot of travel, mostly conducted by air. I would assume everyone knows about the sensationalism surrounding aeroplane accidents and fatalities, so I was most definitely
How can I put this.. The world is a horrible place. Many people die every day. The sooner one realises this, the more prepared they will be when it happens next.
While there have been studies conducted that showed that there was an effect on children viewing news and developing the symptoms that Con has described, namely a child thinking that things could happen to them, this is a question of rational. If a child knows and is shown how unlikely it is that something like that will happen to them or their family, there is no issue. And many news channel are over sensationalising a lot of content, however, as children will use their parents a role models, if the parents are intelligent and educated they would not fall for such sensationalism, and thus neither would their children.
However, if the parents are ones to fall for over sensationalised news, the child is likely to do the same. As such, this is not really the cause of news, but of upbringing.
As such, children are more than able to and and should read the news, however this depends on the child and their upbringing.
In conclusion, as stated above, children reading and watching the news is a topic depending on child to child basis.
However, as there cannot be given an ultimate statement that children in or under grade 3 should watch the news, it cannot be said that children in or under grade 3 should not watch the news.
While Cons sister may not be mature enough to watch the news, many young children are mature enough and will not see the news or news events as a threat, as they are informing them, but not actually impacting them.
After all, a threat that one does not know about is still a threat, ignorance will not make it go away.
As such, 3rd graders and younger should be allowed to watch the news.
Kind regards, I am looking forward to the next round.
I would like to applaud Con on their most amazing rebuttal, which was not even an ad hominem. Now, an ad hominem is the worst argument one can make. Just to understand, Cons statement was not even an ad hominem, it was not even an argument.
Furthermore, Con did not even provide any reasoning or evidence to support their statement.
Why did Con create this topic if they seemingly cannot defend their case, nor provide any rebuttals or any arguments at all?
I would have been more content with an ad hominem, as it at least is an argument, even though an extremely pathetic and ridiculous one.
Thus Pro's arguments from the previous round are still as valid as before.
Kind regards, I am looking forward to the next round.
Once again the question surfaces, why is Con on this page?
Con does not engage in debate, and in fact has in the majority of their debates, as in this one, displayed appalling behaviour.
In the 15 debates that Con has conducted on this site, not one reasonably intelligent statement has surfaced from their side. Clearly this debate has not changed anything about this.
While I really do not care about Cons statement of round 2, namely "I hate you", as I have been called much 'worse' by persons of inferior intelligence, Con's general conduct on this debate is quite atrocious, as I personally researched for my arguments and provided evidence, while Con could not even be bothered to be polite or reply in a semi-intelligent or mature way.
As outlined in round 1, children in and under 3rd grade should watch the news. Con did not provide any actual evidence or intelligent reasoning, nor could rebut any of Pro's arguments.
Kind regards for this debate, thanks to all readers and voters.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was really the only one with a substantive argument. Con's sole point in the debate was anecdotal and never clearly linked to anyone other than her own sister. The result is that Pro's able to present simple reasons why people, even the very young, should be informed citizens, even bringing to bear a much better elucidated and linked anecdote to counter Con's. Since Con is never responsive to this point, and since it's the only real argument with any general heft, the debate goes to Pro. Conduct also goes to Pro as a result of Con's using a whole round solely to express hatred for him and wasting the third, essentially spurning her own debate. Sources go to Pro for presenting one that shows that this goes beyond just his personal opinion, further differentiating Pro's arguments from Con and solidifying his victory.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.