The Instigator
hunterumel22
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Should Censorship be allowed on Radio stations, TV, and everything else?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2014 Category: Music
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 797 times Debate No: 55208
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

hunterumel22

Con

I do not think that music should be censored in anything really, Now I think that if you were to listen to a uncensored song on TV or the Radio then I think they should have some way of "Warning" the Listeners that there will be some gruesome language or explicit material before listening to the song. If you didn't want your child to listen to it then I think that is your own job to monitor what your child listens to.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

I thank my opponent for starting this thought-provoking topic.

The Resolution is clear: Should censorship be allowed on Radio Stations, TV, and everything else?

I am in the Pro position meaning that I am in support of censorship in relation to the resolution presented here today.

I will first present some definitions for clarification purposes, followed by my arguments and response to my opponents claims in R1.

Definitions

Censorship: the system or practice of censoring books, movies, letters, etc. [1]

Censor: to examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc. [2]

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Arguments

I. Censorship is a necessary evil which protects us from unnecessary evil.


The term necessary can be defined as: something so important that you must do it or have it : absolutely needed. [3]

The term evil can be defined as: morally bad. [4]

If we look at a nation such as America, we can see that the American society is one that is upheld by a network of laws, rights, privileges, freedoms, and censorship. The reason such things act as the glue for our society is due to the natural tendency for humankind to desire order in this world. [5] According to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a system of Safety such as order is the 2nd most important need that humans desire, surpassed in importance only by our Biological and Physiological needs such as air, water, food, shelter, warmth, sex, and sleep. With this in mind, it is understandable to see why we would allow the seemingly immoral act of censorship to exist within our society. Such censorship has the role of serving as a filter for removing from the general audience anything that is deemed offensive, immoral or harmful to society.

An example of how censorship can act as a necessary evil to protect us from unnecessary evils would be the case of the Sandy Hook Shooting. The actions that occurred that day are generally seen around the world as immoral. The innocent lives of children, taken by the hand of a deranged killer are usually never acceptable by any standard of morality. Now let's consider the potential images that could have been shown around the world. The media, had censorship not been allowed, could have potentially shown the images of a six-year old child with half of her face blown off from multiple gun-shot wounds. A little boy with a bullet hole through the eye socket being covered by a morticians cloth. How would seeing those images, by any means, serve to benefit our society? Such images are not necessary as seeing such images could cause intense trauma in younger viewers [6] and even viewers who suffer from mental issues like PTSD. [7] Although it can be argued that censorship is morally bad, as it restricts the information exposed to individuals, in certain cases like the Sandy Hook Shooting we can see that such acts as censorship actually provided a beneficial role that served to protect viewers from harmful images.

[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[5] http://www.simplypsychology.org...
[6] http://yourmindonmedia.com...
[7] http://www.ptsd.va.gov...

II. There are alternatives.

Don't like censorship? Fine. Subscribe to XM-radio or Sirius Satellite radio. Neither of those services practice censorship. Crude language? You got it. Music with no censorship? You got it.

There is just no need to alter the current system when alternatives already exist for those who want uncensored sources for music and entertainment.

Rebuttal

I. "
Now I think that if you were to listen to a uncensored song on TV or the Radio then I think they should have some way of "Warning" the Listeners that there will be some gruesome language or explicit material before listening to the song."

There are several issues with this statement:

1) The time spent issuing warnings cuts into both advertising time and music time. Let's say that out of every hour of radio-time, fifteen minutes of that is spent on advertisements or commercial breaks and then the remaining forty-five minutes is music. Now let's say that they were to make a warning and that the warning took up 15 seconds of air-time every time it was issued. If we had fifteen songs that lasted 3 minutes each, and twelve of those songs required warnings, the radio would lose at-least one song for every hour of rotation. This cuts into the money that the artist would normally be receiving had the warnings never been needed in the first place. On the other hand, such warnings would never cut into advertising time since that is how radio stations make a majority of their income. Essentially, issuing such warnings only hurts the consumer or listener of the station. Is it truly fair to rob the listeners of an additional song per rotation due to warnings now being issued if a song is morally questionable?

2) The impact it would have on music itself. With music now free from persecution, how exactly would this benefit the development of music? Are profanities truly necessary for improving music? Let's be honest, the FCC censors music because there is no need for profanities or other crude messages to be imparted upon the listeners. What do we gain from it? Perhaps gangster rap would benefit, considering that profanity and crude lyrics are now prized among those fans, but short of that - there is no real gain to be had.

3) The potential loss of listeners would harm the radio stations. Radio stations live and die by the numbers of their ratings. This goes for television shows as well, but because music was the main example my opponent provided - I will focus on that. Just because censorship would be allowed doesn't necessarily mean it is desired by the majority. The Nation of America is still primarily ruled by an standard of ethics and morality. Most parents would not expose their children to songs about beastiality, blowing off the head of your enemy in your territory, or selling whores on the corner for money. Most parents would not expose their children to songs that have the f-word or other profane terms spoken constantly within the lyrics. I'm not saying all parents wouldn't, but there is a general consensus that exists which seems to determine what is appropriate or not. Does my opponent think for a moment that certain radio stations wouldn't see the opportunity to please those who do not wish to be barraged by constant warnings before songs and constantly have to monitor what their children are listening to. It just isn't practical. The system we have in place now works well, and as I said before, there are plenty of alternative sources which do not practice censorship or are limited by the FCC.

II. "If you didn't want your child to listen to it then I think that is your own job to monitor what your child listens to."

Does my opponent expect parents to monitor their children 24/7? In this modern day and age it is nearly impossible to maintain a full-time job to support a family and also keep watch over ever action the family children do on a daily basis. Unless my opponent explains how they'd manage to even accomplish such a feat, I believe this point is baseless. The benefits of censorship, in this case, would be the solution to the issue my opponent is unknowingly raising.

Conclusion

I have shown the role that Censorship plays is a necessary one. I have also shown how there are uncensored sources of music and entertainment that already exist as alternatives, without having to abolish censorship. I believe that censorship should be allowed and believe I have upheld my position in showing why. I've also shown why my opponents claims are baseless and ultimately invalid as reasons to not allow censorship.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
hunterumel22

Con

hunterumel22 forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

My opponent has forfeited Round 2.

I extend all arguments as they currently remain unchallenged.
Debate Round No. 2
hunterumel22

Con

hunterumel22 forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the final round.

I extend all arguments as they currently remain standing unchallenged. I believe I have upheld my burden as Pro by presenting my arguments and providing rebuttals to my opponents' initial claims. I have also provided sources to further strengthen my arguments and validate my claims.

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this thought-provoking debate and look forward to any and all challenges from him in the future.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
hunterumel22Blade-of-TruthTied
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: No one has voted yet... how odd? Con forfeited twice and therefore violated rules of conduct. Also, pro provided such a good argument. I can tell that effort was put into this argument, but unfortunately was spoilt by con not responding. Good show, Blade of Truth!
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
hunterumel22Blade-of-TruthTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff'd. Pro provided sources and logical arguments.