The Instigator
Skulls
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Should Television Be Banned?

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...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,991 times Debate No: 13582
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Skulls

Pro

Television or no Television can change how our world works. With Television our lives don't go anywhere. Our education moves down greatly, our obeisity moves up intensly and our body in every way gets hurt. A question that should be answered is can we survive without television? With television our lives may be changed forever. Generation by generation will suffer and that is why I would like to start this debate, Should Television be banned?

Television is a great way to hurt your education. Everyday in the morning when you wake up. The first thing you do while your waiting to get breakfast or even when your eating breakfast the T.V is on. You go to school and you are still thinking of the cool show you are watched in the morning. And that leads to a distraction during your school day. Even after you get home you probably get a snack but then click on the T.V. After you watch T.V your distracted again. You don't do quality homework and you go to sleep late which makes you brain worse the next day. As everyday goes by you don't gain any knowledge. A future plan will be hurt and generation by generation people will continue the same process. Television may not just change a day of someones life but a day of waste and a generation of suffering.

Why in America is there the most obeisity? Why in America is there are so many junk foods? There may be some weird reason that leads to this answer. But a big reason is because theres T.V. When you watch T.V you are usually eating a snack. How does it get to you about eating the snack, well when you watch television you have a bond with you and a snack which tempts you to eat it. Another thing of how Television leads to obeisity is that when you eat and then watch T.V the fat and sugar of the food you ate dosen't turn it into energy but fat because because there is no exercise with T.V. A minute of television could mean a minute of fat.

If you don't think obeisity is bad yet then think about your whole body taking damage. So far in my debate your brain gets hurt and so does your stomach, heart and brain. Your eyes will start to lose eyesite as you keep watching T.V. This can be a forever change in your life. Your hearing will lose as days go on with television, for listening to television hurts your ears if its continuos. A great way to hurt your whole body is television, and without it we would be much better off.

Television caused much damage. If we still keep it we as humans will never feel like we accomplished something so great for television is so bad that Television should be banned.
Danielle

Con

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate.

In his opening argument, Skulls asserts that television makes our education decrease and our obesity increase. However, nowhere in the last round did my opponent prove either of these things to be true. First, Pro says that each day you wake up in the morning, watch TV, and then daydream about your TV show while you're at school. Of course Pro has absolutely zero proof or indication that each person or even most people watch TV before work or school, let alone stay distracted by thoughts of television. Ergo, this proves nothing in relation to how television affects your ability to learn.

Pro continues to say that people watch TV after school and care more about their programs than school work, indicating that this will hurt future generations. However just because more people are spending more time watching television on average doesn't mean it has to be banned in any capacity. People or parents can and are responsible for limiting the amount of television one watches in terms of maintaining productivity. If TV at any way interferes with one's success, individuals have the right and self authority to monitor and alter their TV intake to an appropriate level. In other words, there's no reason to assume that everyone abuses television privileges, and even if some do, that in no way makes it acceptable to ban this enjoyment and convenience for everyone.

Moreover, Pro leaves out the fact that television can in fact be very informative and an asset to one's education. For instance there are many intellectual programs, including but not limited to PBS, CNN, The History Channel, The Science Channel, The Discovery Channel, etc. In fact many channels are established for educational purposes alone [1]. Since television is so appealing to young children, several shows have been developed around the concept of specifically introducing educational things in an exciting way, such as Sesame Street teaching toddlers about letters, numbers and colors, and other shows like Barney that teach social lessons about sharing, acceptance, bullying, etc [2]. Dora the Explorer is another example of a TV show that encourages bilingual learning and highlights the ever-growing Spanish-American culture. The Magic School Bus and Bill Nye the Science Guy make science fun, while Wishbone introduces tweens to complex literature. I could go on and on.

In short, television doesn't have to be a hindrance to one's education and in fact can be used as a tool.

Next, Pro claims that television is the primary cause of obesity in this country. Of course obesity has many other complex factors, though I can agree to a certain extend that a lack of active lifestyle is indeed one of te major contributors to the epidemic. However, just because TV is allowed does not mean that people automatically must become less active. One could easily make an effort to balance time being active and time spent relaxing in front of the TV. Moreover, watching TV is something many people enjoy doing while they are working out in the gym, with some even calling them absolute necessities [3]. This is because many people enjoy being distracted during their workout, and in fact get a better workout if they're entertained and their mind is kept off of their grueling efforts.

In conclusion, my opponent hasn't proven that TV is the primary factor of obesity, while I've demonstrated that obesity is not necessary with television; responsible people can avoid becoming inactive and they should not be punished. Moreover I've explained how television can be instrumental in the education process, especially for young children, meaning we should not automatically discount it as bad. Pro also hasn't proven that interest in TV distracts from school or other responsibilities in most cases. We cannot punish all of society for a few people's shortcomings.

Finally, television not only a great tool for entertainment and education but politics and fueling the economy in general. TV is how products are marketed and advertised; it serves both entertainment and practical purposes. Also, the media is how the vast majority of Americans learn about what's going on in their communities and the world at large. Television news is the biggest media outlet and news source for people to learn and make decisions about political going-ons and other events. The benefits of television greatly outweigh the potential negatives, and even the negatives can be avoided and minimized.

Thanks and good luck.

[1] http://www.museum.tv...
[2] http://www.pbs.org...
[3] http://www.standsandmounts.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Skulls

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for responding to my debate.
I will first start out to refute some of my opponents arguments and then I will move on to some more of my arguments.
Con states a lot in his arguments that I do not have much evidence in my arguments. And I admit that it is true. But I will now tell them at the end of my arguments.

Con says that some shows help to asset someone's education. I agree that there are educational shows but I do not agree that people watch them. There may be thousands of shows out in the world somewhere. But how many people actually watch them. I mean like shows for smaller kids may be very educational but smaller kids don't take in the information which is just a waste. Yes a few older kids use this educational resource because there teachers require it. Meaning the majority of watchers use television for shows other than educational ones.

My opponent has also said that not all factors of obesity come from T.V. True, but mostly everything leads to one source, Television. Where do most people get all those junky foods down there stomach? Well, when watching Television there's a grip on food. For example in the movie theater. Why do they sell popcorn and all the other food? Because whenever watching Television the habit of eating while watching gets in the way. Even worse after eating your still watching which means that burning of the calories that are eaten turn into fat. Second watching T.V takes away playing and excersizing time. While being distracted on T.V you could be excersizing. Wasting excersize and gaining fat only means a lead to obesity.

Con clearly says that parent's are responsible and can choose how much T.V the family watches. But how can parents control and monitor how much T.V is taken in if parents themselves can't even control themselves from watching T.V. If kids cannot control T.V, parents cannot control T.V then I think its time for T.V to be controlled some other way by forcing Television to be banned.

Now I will move to my arguments.

Many shows produce violence and unnecessary material for children to watch. It is proved that children who watch violent stuff become more aggressive themselves and even worse become afraid of the world around them. For they think that something bad will happen to them. Unnecessary material is believed to influence young children to become there favorite inappropriate character themselves. We have bad shows on television already we do not need bad people though.

Finally, television may be a great entertainment but it is not a great education to the brain, body or mind and our society these days need to accept new challenges of having Television become a loss. With great power we can overcome these challenges. All we need is a little support and then off we are, we'll have a great community. A educational, in shape and strong body community.

Thanks to my opponent,

[1] http://kidshealth.org...
[2] http://www.med.umich.edu...
Danielle

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for his timely response. I'd also like to clarify that I am a female.

***

Pro responds to my contention that there are some educational TV sources by noting that these shows are watched less frequently than shows purely for entertainment. While this may be true, it ignores the reality that there is some educational value even to shows deemed frivolous or silly. For instance, despite being a satirical show on Comedy Central, Jon Stuart's The Daily Show has been given numerous awards for reporting news, and organizations such as the Pew Research Center claim that it has become a primary source of news for many young people [1].

Plus, consider a fan favorite like Lost which explores many deep philosophical concepts [2]. Other top-watched shows like CSI are crime dramas that give some insight to law enforcement, just as House is popular and educational and teaches a lot of medical tidbits. Some shows simply teach lessons about life, culture or society. Either way, so long as there is something to be learned from TV, it shouldn't be banned. Furthermore, since it's possible for TV to be used for good, then just because we might want to encourage better TV habits and promote smarter shows doesn't mean TV should be banned. Instead, efforts can be made to promote higher quality television.

Next, Pro mentions that people tend to eat while watching TV and become lazy. In my last round I explained that this might be true, though is no reason to punish the responsible viewers or assume everyone will make these unhealthy choices. You must give people the right to make their own decisions regarding their self health. It's tyrannical to suggest television be banned on the basis of potential unhealthy habits - especially when these habits can be changed. For instance instead of snacking on popcorn, people might try fruits instead. Plus, I've also explained how TV isn't the inherent cause of obesity. It's not the TV that makes someone eat or become lazy; it's their own state of mind, which should be encouraged to change instead of banning TV.

Pro's following argument is that because parents are irresponsible and watch TV, that the government ought to step in so neither parents nor children can abuse this privilege. This is a complete violation of our constitutional rights which give us the freedom to pursue happiness, the freedom of expression, and other protections that guarantee that parents can make decisions which effect their child's upbringing. Watching TV is not inherently dangerous; you don't get diseases or even obese from watching alone. Only coupled with an unhealthy lifestyle can TV harm you. Meanwhile, there are plenty of other things the government doesn't forbid despite their potential harms, such as suntanning, junk food, etc.

Moving on, Pro introduces the argument of violent media negatively impacting children. On the contrary, some evidence suggests actual positive effects, such as the notion that violent media can actually provide a healthy release for the frightening emotions of children and young adults [3]. Other doctors believe that a violent child must have been exposed to more than just programming in order to exhibit behaviors that they may have seen on television or in the media. Regardless, even if TV does make children more violent, it once again means we cannot punish everyone - as plenty of people do not suffer from feelings of violence or fear after watching violent TV. Further, there are dozens of options regarding ways in which parents can not only monitor what their children watch on television, but actually take preventative measures to stop them from watching anything inappropriate [4].

Finally, Pro concludes by saying "television may be a great entertainment but it is not a great education to the brain, body or mind and our society these days need to accept new challenges of having Television become a loss." This of course commits the bare assertion fallacy; we have no reason to accept this simply because Pro says it. Throughout this debate I've explained how television is used for educational purposes, and has many other positive effects such as regarding educating the masses on politics, the economy, etc. Pro has chosen to ignore these arguments thus far. I've also demonstrated that TV is only harmful within the context of an unhealthy lifestyle. In other words, there is nothing inherently harmful or destructive about TV, and that if used responsibly can only be a source of good - or at least significant good on balance. I've also demonstrated that a ban would not only be entirely unnecessary and counterproductive, but also unconstitutional and immoral insofar as it's a violation of our basic rights to self governance.

Thanks, Pro, and good luck in the final round.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://lostpedia.wikia.com...
[3] http://allpsych.com...
[4] http://www.wmctv.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Skulls

Pro

Thanks Con, and sorry about that accidental mistake of gender.

Con states that some silly or frivolous shows have actually some educational purpose. True, and I'm sure many people watch some educational related show. But the main point here is that the majority use it for some other purpose which could include mostly just entertainment.

Con states that we shouldn't punish the responsible viewers. True, I believe that there are many responsible viewers for there health. But we are not punishing the responsible viewers, we are punishing the unresponsible viewers. I think that changing popcorn to a fruit is a very good idea. But is it really possible to change a family habit of popcorn during movies. I also agree that yes it is there own state of mind but the problem is they cannot control there mind. Finally, our country is one of the most obeist country. If if television may not be the majority cause it will still contribute into making our country less obeist.

Con also states that there is a violation of freedom to pursue happiness. This is one of times you have to bend it. For example what if you start to kill people and they say it to pursue there happiness, what would your reaction be to this. Would you really agree with him. We may not be in such a serious situation as described as a example but it has the same meaning.

Con says in one of his arguments that there are good effects and many people don't take effect of this problem. But once again we are trying to help the ones that take damage and are not responsible. It is like would you hurt the bad people and good people or would you support good and bad people. We need to make a decision in different perspectives to determine which position higher than the other.

Our Television system has totally taken the U.S and we need to stop it. Throughout these three rounds of debate. I have proved to answer strongly all of con's arguments. Our U.S may not all have these problems I have stated through out these rounds but we must punish the bad and our best choice to ban Television.

Thanks Con for this debate and good luck,

[1] http://www.nationmaster.com...
[2] http://kidshealth.org...
[3] http://www.med.umich.edu...
Danielle

Con

Thanks again, Pro, for this debate!

For clarity, I'll break down each argument into numerical form in the order they were presented.

***

1. Pro agrees that TV can be educational. He's said that his point is that the majority don't watch educational TV, which as you can see from previous round explanations is irrelevant to my argument. I've said that since TV can be used for good, there's no reason why we shouldn't encourage putting it to better use instead of scrapping it all-together. This was one of many contentions pertaining to this fact.

2. Another one was that banning TV does punish those who are responsible with their health and other obligations. Pro says, "But we are not punishing the responsible viewers, we are punishing the unresponsible viewers." Of course this is false; if we take away TV from those who don't abuse it, it's punishing them unnecessarily.

3. Regarding making changes such as switching from snacking on popcorn to snacking on fruit, Pro says that this is unlikely to happen because people are committed to eat certain things at certain times. However people haven't eaten popcorn during TV since the beginning of time; people were conditioned that way and as such can just as easily be conditioned in another direction if persuaded enough to do so.

4. Pro says banning TV will make our country less obese. As I've explained in prior rounds, there are innumerbale culprits to the obesity epidemic in America, specifically eating very unhealthy foods (because they're cheaper), not getting enough exercise, etc. In no way can or has Pro proven that eliminating TV will significantly change this statistic. My contention here is that even without TV, Americans would find some other electronic or interactive hobby that would take up time instead -- such as film, internet, cell phones, video games, etc.

5. I mentioned that banning TV infringes on the pursuit of happiness. Pro attempts to make an analogous comparison here by saying we infringe on murderer's right to pursue happiness (kill) all the time. However I think it's quite clear to the audience that watching TV and murder are entirely different activities with nowhere near the same impact or results. Clearly killing someone and infringing on another's right to life is much different (worse) than watching TV. As such, so far here Pro hasn't given an example of something else pretty frivolous that the government prevents in an attempt to improve the greater good, so this argument must be dropped. However even if Pro had given an example -- say the War on Drugs -- I would have argued that it is wrong for the government to do this, even if they have a right to do it (and by right I obviously mean self-appointed right, which I would have also argued).

***

-- CONCLUSION --

I've demonstrated that TV can be used for positive, educational purposes and as such should not be banned. The TV also need not be scapegoated for the irresponsible choices that people make, as the TV itself does nothing inherently harmful. Pro has chosen to completely ignore every single other positive and useful thing I've mentioned regarding TV, such as keeping the masses informed on both the economy and politics which ultimately significantly impacts their lives - especially in terms of changing the world regarding politicians' platforms, keeping up with world events, etc. In other words, it's been part of my argument that TV serves a basic human function (informative media) that Americans significantly utilize. This was dropped. On the contrary, I've negated or responded to all of Pro's assertions that the TV is destroying America. As I pointed out, any negative repercussion from watching television can be avoided. Because of this, it's obvious that on balance television serves a far greater purpose for good than bad, and as such should not be banned - even if Americans need a wake-up call regarding being healthy.

Thanks and good luck!
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by DaBestGuy1010 2 years ago
DaBestGuy1010
Nice debate guys! Luvd it!
Try to find the F
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEF
Posted by mageist24 3 years ago
mageist24
I had no idea Biggie Smalls was a woman O.o
Posted by dinokiller 3 years ago
dinokiller
How the mighty have fallen, theories doesnt work without proof.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 3 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Plus, theLwerd has accepted the debate. She is known for presenting generally good argumentation. This debate is deemed acceptable under the supervision of the BDA.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 3 years ago
studentathletechristian8
While there are various grammar mistakes and an overall informal format to this debate, the BDA believes that this debate can lead to interesting discussion between the opposing sides. Thus, this debate is deemed acceptable under the regulation of the BDA.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by mageist24 3 years ago
mageist24
SkullsDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Weave77 3 years ago
Weave77
SkullsDanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by BillBonJovi 3 years ago
BillBonJovi
SkullsDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 3 years ago
Danielle
SkullsDanielleTied
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