The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
10 Points

Should every home have a TV

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2014 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 644 times Debate No: 51032
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Homes don't need TV because it wastes time. Kids watch
An estimated 21 hours a week worth of Telivision. adults watch about half of that. We don't need TV to be occupied. I'm not a hippie or anything but shouldn't we be outside, spending time with those you love, instead of sitting on your butt getting fat.


I will be arguing that, yes, everyone home should have a TV.

I will defer to the next round to refute my opponent's points.

1. TV can be used for Educational and Informational Purposes
The resolution states "TV", not cable, or satellite tv, so it is entirely possible, and even easy, for the family to purchase old DVD's and video cassetes to watch educational programs, such as Cailou, Cyber Chases, Zoboomafo, and Sesame Street, or social-accpetance programing (shows that teach kids how to interact with each other) like Arthur. There are a myriad of shows to watch, none of which will have a negative effect on the child, though there are some that do. Even barring this with the kids, news casts and weather reports are pushed through with television. Crime reports and political speeches and discussions are pushed through with tv. I will concede that there is always some slant with this programs, but a conscientious observer will watch at least two or three different news stations. More than this, advertising and promotional campaigns are pushed through, which, dependent on the time, relate to activities that kids will generally participate in. All of these things give information to adults, and parents, in order for them to make plans.

2. TV can be used for Family Time
All of the shows listed above can be seen as a family activity, if applicable (not all people who own TV's have families with them). The show Wipeout is a very family-friendly show, it promotes friendly competition, and has a bit of humor thrown in. I only mention this because my father , my siblings, and myself would all on, or around, the couch and watch it. Pretty enjoyable time, no effort on any of our parts, in terms of setting things up, or cleaning, or moving, and sometimes this is a good thing. You always want to promote health, but relaxation is critical too.

Neither of those points is to suggest that everyone should blow money they don't have on a TV they don't need, but there are TV sets of minimal, or low, cost that are not HD quality, but will get most, if not all, of the same channels, if you want to get cabe, or will play video cassetes and DVD's, if you are willing to buy DVD's, Video Cassettes, and a DVD/VCR combo set. All of these can be found at a low cost, so money wouldn't necessarily be an issue.

*Don't take this to be an ad campaign. I am simply stating a few of the more productive uses of TV.

In a household, whether there is a single person, a couple, or a family, all of these things will be beneficial. Even the less educational, more entertaining shows can be beneficial. Comedy can be found throughout most reality TV shows and cartoons, and there are some reality TV shows that show a very complex process being done, such as Bar Rescue and Love it or List it. There is no reason to watch cartoons all day everyday, but that has less to do with the existence of a TV, and more to do with choice of channels, and you can't really impede upon someone's right to use their assets as they please if they aren't affecting you.

I look forward to my opponents arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Family time is not sitting in front of a tv. Family time is doing something together that has communicating and interaction, not siting on their butts watching tv. You could say it can be used for educational purposes but usally kids use it to be entertained. Plus the kids will be too tempted to Watch something else besides educational purposes. Tv makes you fat. You need exersize and sitting on your butt for 3 hours doesn't count as exersize. Why waste your time on watching people do something on a screen and do something that is worth it.


I thank my opponent for the responses presented.

Since this is the last round of debate, i will point out a few flaws in my opponents arguments.

"Family time is doing something together that has communicating and interaction."

I do not see how family time can be so easily denegrated into certain actions. This would mean that a parent taking a child to the park and eating a nice picnic lunch is not family time unless they talk. (you can exchange parent and child for any possible persons). I am unsure how my opponent chose to make that distinction without paying attention to what it would mean. I don't believe that is what family time means. I do not know if many people would, as family time can be as simple as being in the same room at the same time. Possibly watching TV. "Family movies" would not be considered a "family time" event. Even eating dinner without talking would not be a "family time" event. My opponent's definition is extremely narrow, and does not present a strong argument against the idea of TV being used for family time.

"TV makes you fat."
Being sedentary, and not excersising, but choosing to eat unhealthy food makes you happy. It is unhealthy to exercise all the time, so something is needed to allow relaxation. Some people choose to read, others choose to write, some choose to watch TV. This is a baseless assertion, with no evidence provided, and a blatant Simple Cause fallacy. If TV makes people fat, then doesn't that mean that all non-fat people don't, and never have, watched TV. If not, then this statement carries no value.

"Plus the kids will be too tempted to watch something else besides educational purposes."
It depends on the child, and whether or not the parent chooses to allow them to do that. Then again, i see no issue with entertainment. Per the website previously cited, children have a psychological need for fun. This need would be met by TV, so tv becomes beneficial, and thus of value to a household. I do not believe many people will be anything that has neither utility nor personal value (which includes sentimental, aesthetic, and intrinsic). The fact that people hold garage sales for old UNWANTED things is evidence enough in support of this fact, but i will provide more evidence. The existence of museums provides reason to believe that, though something may not have utility, it still has value. The willingness of people to fix appliances, or hire someone to do so, provides reason to believe that things of utility have value.

"You need excercise."
Agreed. That has nothing to do with the existence of a TV in the household, though TV can be used as a way to "bring the gym home", with videos like Insanity, an entire serious of videos dedicated to getting a person fit and healthy. Gym memberships are costly; buying or renting gym equipment is costly. Insanity is a video that doesn't require much equipment. I wonder how i know that....OH wait. TV. So my opponent's statement does more in favor of the PRO position than the CON position.

This debate has been centered on the "family unit" as the primary audience of TV. Though families do make up an entire demographic, they are not the only one, though majority of what has been stated can be extrapolated to the general population.

I will concede that some homes do not have the ability to purchase a TV, but i would like to note that this debate did not center on whether every home COULD have a TV, just whether or not every home SHOULD have a TV. My opponent has failed to present any reasons as to why every home should not have a TV. The arguments that were presented related more to the time spent watching TV than whether or not TV's should be in every household. The arguments that were presented that were not related to time spent watching TV were more beneficial to the PRO position than the CON position.

I thank my opponent for this debate, and hope the audience will vote fairly, based on the arguments that have been presented.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by sewook123 2 years ago
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 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: Grammar errors in Con's arguments and Pro had better arguments.
Vote Placed by Juris 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro clearly pointed the benefits of the proposition. He was able to counter properly the points presented by Con. The presentation of pro is better than that of con's. Further, Pro used examples to make his arguments well. Overall, pro did a great job.