The Instigator
Edvin_32178
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ProfJacob
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Should TV shows that are innaproprite be banned for kids that are not 17 and up?

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 4 votes the winner is...
ProfJacob
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2014 Category: TV
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 543 times Debate No: 45110
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

Edvin_32178

Pro

In my opoinon I think that innaporpirte TV shows should be banned for underage people because the underage people are gonna learn bad stuff and when the kids grow up thet will remember the bad stuff from when they were kids.

And now I will wait for the post of my opponent
ProfJacob

Con

Seeing as my opponent has already presented his argument:

Rebuttals

"In my opoinon I think that innaporpirte TV shows should be banned for underage people because the underage people are gonna learn bad stuff and when the kids grow up thet will remember the bad stuff from when they were kids."

Adults are usually more mature than children. So when they grow up, generally, they won't take advantage of that knowledge. Maybe they can do what's demonstrated in the show, but not to a certain extent that it is unacceptable, in terms of influencing/affecting others. Some will, but doesn't the same go for another adult who just watched that AS AN ADULT?

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.

(P.S. He privately messaged me, notifying me that the burden of proof is on him)

Debate Round No. 1
Edvin_32178

Pro

OK BUDDY I LIKE COWS SO YEAH AND IF YOULIKE HORSES WERE FRIENDS
ProfJacob

Con

Well, either my opponent has officially conceded, or put a round to waste. Either way, I won't reply, seeing as it isn't anyhow relevant to this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Edvin_32178

Pro

Sorry about that round my child Joe got my computer and typed random stuff. Sorry about that. Ok now when you said adults are more mature I wasn't talking about that. I was trying to say that if a underage child watches a innapropeit TV show they will remember that bad memory when the child grows up to be like 5 or 6 years old. I didn't mean when the child becomes and adult he/she will still remember that innapropeit TV show. I'm still talking about when the underage kids are still kids but are not like babies.
ProfJacob

Con

Ah! You should have been specific in the first round! You privately messaged me, telling me that you were only going to defend the current argument presented in R1. So, the reason I accepted this was because if that was true, I was confident to win, seeing as I believed that your argument was heavily flawed. We have privately messaged each other, agreeing that noone will vote for the other person.
Debate Round No. 3
Edvin_32178

Pro

We'll I kind of was defending my first argument I just was in a rush because my son Joe keeps interrupting me. Over all I did sate that children shouldn't be able to watch inappropriate TV shows because the little kids are gonna learn bad stuff as I said in the previous round
ProfJacob

Con

What I meant was: I thought you privately messaged me and told me that you were going to defend your current argument presented in R1 AS I INTERPRETED IT!
Debate Round No. 4
Edvin_32178

Pro

I know that. So can we argue now
ProfJacob

Con

I already told you: You should have been specific enough. Since you privately messaged me, telling me that you were only going to defend the current argument presented in R1, I felt I could win, as I felt that your reasoning was heavily flawed. However, I misinterpreted.

Second of all, how are we going to continue here? Seeing as this is the final round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by emilydebate 3 years ago
emilydebate
Edvin_32178ProfJacobTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con got all.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Edvin_32178ProfJacobTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I think theoretically Con should win because Pro did not meet the burden of proof, but the debate is such a mess I'll call it a tie. Pro made an assertion in R1 with no proof and very little argument. Con responded win an unsupported assertion, again with very little argumentation. After that, there was little progress in the debate arguments. When an opponent forfeits, fails to argue, or makes no sense the best practice is to continue on with your own arguments and evidence until you have said everything you want to say. Going limp doesn't work. If there are agreements between the debaters, it's better if they are in the comments rather than in PM. However, agreements will have to be repeated in the debate so the debate remains self-contained. Remarks in comments are sources for what's said in the debate. I researched this subject for one of my own debates and could find no sources proving long term effects. Parents, however, should get to choose for their children.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Edvin_32178ProfJacobTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Considering only Round 1 as the debate literally didn't continue in further rounds, Arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by TheAmazingAtheist1 3 years ago
TheAmazingAtheist1
Edvin_32178ProfJacobTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: S&G: Pretty self-explanatory; Capitalization errors. ARGUMENTS: While Con formally formatted his arguments, Pro's was scattered everywhere, transitioning from one focus to another.