The Instigator
leojm
Con (against)
Tied
33 Points
The Contender
Walrus101
Pro (for)
Tied
33 Points

Should Libraries Carry offensive Books, Music, Movies, Magazines, and etc..

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 17 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,083 times Debate No: 33376
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (26)
Votes (17)

 

leojm

Con

first acceptance, then the argument. Good Luck and have fun.
Walrus101

Pro

I accept, noting that I will be defending that libraries should carry offensive books, music, movies, magazines, and etc. Please include what exactly you mean by "Offensive" in your first round.
Debate Round No. 1
leojm

Con

I think that offensive books, music, movies, magazines, and etc. should not be aloud on the libraries shelves. My support to this argument is that kids of all ages go to the library, my point here is that we don't want our kids looking at this offensive stuff. Libraries should have books, music, magazines, movies, and etc. that are appropriate for kids of all ages. I'm not saying having little kids books in the teenage section but have books and everything else be positive not negative. I have gone to libraries and I was astonished by how many books, magazines, movies, music, and etc. have horrible and offensive scenes and stories. Also the language is totally not acceptable. We don't need kids learning this inappropriate and offensive information. What kids hear comes out of their mouths. We need to protect our kids from hearing this offensive stuff and start teaching them the right things to do. Kids learn everything from books, music, magazines, movies, and etc. Kids need to save the room in their brain for positive learning and education, not fill their brains with nonsense and with inappropriate stuff.

Kids use the information they take in into their everyday life. If they take the most inappropriate information into their head they will act upon it, they will think it's ok to do what they read or heard. They would use the excuse that the people in the book or music did it so why can't they. Also I would like to look more into the section of violent information that is found in the movies or music. This violence affect the way people think. I've heard stories of criminals who read books and use that information to torture their victims. If we illiminate these types of books and movies from the libraries we wouldn't have to worry as much of what goes into peoples heads. Libraries are public, and they need to take things in consideration, like what would be the out come if we do this. They have to understand that there are a lot of kids that go to the library, and even though there is a kid section in the libraries the kids are still able to go to the adult section and read all the offensive information.

I now would like to turn my attention to the music. The music that the libraries offer is very offensive. The bad words on those CD's are unacceptable for kids who are younger than nineteen. Even then nineteen year old shouldn't listen to this stuff either. This world is full of so many negative songs that teenagers and kids learn from the songs and they try to copy what the lyrics in songs says. Like for example; there are songs out there that I've heard of that talks about killing people if they bully you. The problem with kids and teenagers listening to this is that if that person who is bullied might get the idea that that's what he/she should do. Kill the bully. This is the wrong message to give to a kid. The information to give the kid is to report the behavior and not to handle it themselves.

Now is where my problems wit offensive movies. Offensive movies are kind of like songs, they give you the wrong message. Come on it's Hollywood right, kids shouldn't take it seriously, but wrong kids learn from what they see they don't know if it's right or wrong. It's the type of influence you let your kid deal with that gets the kid introduce. Libraries should think of all the pros and cons of having offensive books and music for people to read. Back to the statement I mentioned earlier, kids learn by what they hear, see, and read. This bring my point up of how careful libraries have to be with the stuff they provide for people. Kids think differently than adults do. Each brain has a different way of interpreting information. Meaning they process the information they take in differently. This could be a huge problem which leads me into my next argument.

Kids brains are still undeveloped, which means the stuff they procces through their head will stay wit them forever. So if they take in the offensive information they will use it in their future, but if they get the positive information and how everything should be they will be more successful in life. I believe each brain has only so much information it can hold. Since the brain has long term and short term memory all the good memory will be moved to the short term, because too much offensive information is overriding the good information. Libraries should understand that. I believe they have this offensive stuff because it brings people in. But the problem with that is that those people who read the inappropriate books bring their kids with them. The kids learn from their parents. So if the parent reads something offensive the kid will learn it's ok and there isn't anything wrong with that. This is not what we want our kids to be thinking. This argument more focused on how we can protect our kids from the offensive information that the libraries offer.
Walrus101

Pro

Open To Thought:
First of all, you did not define what "Offensive" means like I asked prior to this round. I will be going with the first definition listed at this site- http://www.merriam-webster.com...

An Impossible Feat:
You see there is a problem with the subject at hand. Books can not attack people. So for inanimate objects to attack someone is unheard of. So the least of our problems is children reading this book, when they may well be destroyed before seeing the book.

As a Matter of Fact:
I feel as if I must address this. Most libraries, since we are speaking generally, do not carry more than books or Ebooks. I myself have never been to a library that has music or movies. Its either I live under a rock or there aren't that many since I have never seen a library quite like that.

In Defense of Smaller Folk:
The fact of this all is that the children need not to worry about offensive material, unless they go too close of course. This means that in turn the libraries can have offensive material, just have it locked in boxes to keep the children from coming to any rate of harm.
Debate Round No. 2
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
NOOOOO, it's a tie!!
Posted by Anon_Y_Mous 4 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
Leojm, I was sitting beside Walrus (Yes, we know each other, yes, that makes me extremely biased in voting) when you posted your argument. It was literally two minutes after he accepted, and the his argument due countdown started at two hours. And one of those was mandatory-no-computers-lunch.
Posted by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
How can anyone debate on a subject when they themselves never been to the library.
Posted by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
OK, sorry didn't know you were at school I guess that does make a difference.
Posted by Walrus101 4 years ago
Walrus101
Well, just because you tell me my argument is due doesn't mean I have the time. I was busy at the time, since school does not always give me time to goof off on DDO.
Posted by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
F.Y.I I messaged my opponent 2 or 3 times telling him to post his argument, I believe he didn't post it until he had two hours left. So it's exactly not my fault that he had two hours. Though I do agree I should have had more rounds, therefore I can answer what "offensive" means, and defend my argument more. Also my opponent would be happier because he would have had more time, as he claims he didn't have. Still everybody keep in mind that not all debates are the same. Also I didn't use sources because this was only supposed to be by opinion, and also how can my opponent defend his argument if he hasn't ever been to a library. I would have to say that there would be a lot more of offensive books in bigger cities than small towns. I agree with what utahjoker that he said, "If people want their offensive things go and buy..it" This is true. But anyways I wan't to congratulate my opponent for his argument. He did a good job. I like debating him because I get good practice and he is a good motivation. Good job Walrus101, keep up the good work. :D
Posted by Walrus101 4 years ago
Walrus101
Well Geeki, she admitted to not reading it first.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
@Smithereens: Why?
Posted by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
I said i was on my e-mail when i got the message. That's how I was able to type. It's simple.
Posted by GeekiTheGreat 4 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
How can you type out an argument without reading your opponents argument first?
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
leojmWalrus101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: One round of debate is not a debate; don't propose a debate that does not have room for argument. Pro and Con are labelled backwards. Pro should have won this debate easily, but simply proposing that age standards for access to materials be applied more judiciously. But Pro didn't even quote the definition of "offensive" so we are supposed to complete a reading assignment and then figure out what his case ought to be. I think it's common knowledge that most libraries these days have videos and music, so Pro needed to respond to the point, either directly or by showing that the libraries with such material are rare. As it is, he didn't respond adequately. It was tough to find a way to lose this debate, but Pro failed to make a case.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
leojmWalrus101Tied
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: countering daniel who is a very biased voter
Vote Placed by danielawesome12 4 years ago
danielawesome12
leojmWalrus101Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm going with Con because I feel it's hard to believe he has never seen a library with movies or music, plus he seemed just rude. However I did like his effort and spelling in this debate.
Vote Placed by utahjoker 4 years ago
utahjoker
leojmWalrus101Tied
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: If people want their offensive things go and.buy..it
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
leojmWalrus101Tied
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: Pro did not follow single round debate structure, If definitions need to be made, then they must be made in the first round. If none is made, then a definition that matches Cons case is the best fit. However, you cannot make a definition in the final round then change the debate to allow yourself a win. This debate goes to con for arguments that negated the resolution in light of that fact, as opposed to the affirmative, who expended little effort. The points Pro made did were not sufficient to support the affirmative BoP and refute at the same time. Conduct penalty for screwing this debate up.
Vote Placed by Napoleon_Dynamite_915 4 years ago
Napoleon_Dynamite_915
leojmWalrus101Tied
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: Pro made a good argument with very little to go on. He was also the only one to provide a resource.
Vote Placed by cybertron1998 4 years ago
cybertron1998
leojmWalrus101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I mean con had so little but he was able to fit a very good argument into it
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 4 years ago
MassiveDump
leojmWalrus101Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm going to make this a tie so you guys can reenstate this debate with more rounds. One round for arguments is never enough to find who's truly the better debater.
Vote Placed by Talib.ul-Ilm 4 years ago
Talib.ul-Ilm
leojmWalrus101Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe Leojm made a more convincing argument. And yes, Walrus, there are libraries that offer DVD's and music CD's, all sorts of stuff, and I live in a small, isolated town, so that says a lot as to what bigger towns and cities might have. Both had good conduct and spelling/grammar. Neither really used sources, but I am giving conduct to Leojm to counter Anon because she thoroughly explained her view of offensive throughout her argument. Leojm gets the point because she made a more convincing argument.
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 4 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
leojmWalrus101Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because Con didn't reply with a definition. Also because there was a two hour timer, and based on the exceptional response speed, I suspect Con pasted a precomposed argument, leaving Pro to panic for time. Arguments goes to Pro because it there was ever a time for semantics, this was it.