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

Should kids be able to watch T.V. everyday non stop?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2016 Category: TV
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 790 times Debate No: 90694
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Im against it because kids need to see the open world and not be put in a house all day.


Thanks for instigating this debate, Con.
It should be fun.


I affirm the resolution that kids should be able to watch T.V. everyday, non stop, because lacking the skill to watch TV is indicative of a physical or mental deficiency and that *should not* be the preferred condition of kids.
Therefore, I reaffirm that kids should always, every day, non stop, have the skill to watch T.V.

*Con's Problem With The Resolution*

Con declares:
"Im against it because kids need to see the open world and not be put in a house all day."

My response:
Well, if kids have the skill to see the open world, they would also have the skill to watch T.V.
At the least, both of those abilities require vision, so if Con thinks that kids shouldn't have the physical capacity to watch TV, then Con would be supporting the suppression of kids' physical capacity to see the open world, contrary to his suggestion.


I found definitions for none of the terms in the resolution, so I'll supply my own and help guide this debate.

should - used to indicate correctness.

kid - a child or young person.

able - having the skill to do something.

watch - look at or observe attentively.

T.V. - television programs.

everyday - daily.

nonstop - without stopping.

On to Con...
Debate Round No. 1


I disagree because watching TV isn't a skill, if you watch it non stop you are being lazy and not getting the exercise you need and you will be unhealthy.


I'm glad Con has no problems with the definitions provided in round 1.

I'm equally not glad that Con thinks that watching TV requires no skill.
In order to look at something attentively, per the uncontested definitions from round 1, one needs the ability to see and the skill of focusing and retaining.

Kids should always have the skill to focus and retain information.
I argue that kids should everyday, nonstop, have the skill/ability required (be able) to watch TV.

The word "able," in this debate, means to have THE skill to do something.
Why would anyone want kids to lack THE skill of focusing and retaining information?

If you think kids should always, nonstop, have the ability/capacity/skill to use their vision and attention span to observe things attentively, then you should vote Pro.

Of course kids should have the skill to focus attentively; it's how they learn.
Debate Round No. 2


nikki1717 forfeited this round.


Thanks for the debate, and may our children always have the ability to look at things attentively.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Danielle// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Pro used sources; Con did not. Pro laid out clear and concise arguments that flowed and were easy to read. His arguments were silly (no offense) but Con didn't even bother trying to argue them effectively.

[*Reason for removal*] While this debate is borderline with regards to Con's side being a full forfeit, arguments nonetheless appear to be given. Thus, the vote will be assessed with the standards. (1) S&G and conduct aren't explained. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter fails to assess specific points made by either side, and merely stating that one side had better flow, was more concise, and easier to read doesn't suffice. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to examine the reliability of the sources given as well as their number, even if the amount of sources from the other side is comparatively nil.
No votes have been placed for this debate.