The Instigator
kirmath
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

Should kids watch more than one hour of tv?

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 8 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,909 times Debate No: 29386
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (8)

 

kirmath

Con

Does watching more than one hour of TV affect you in any way? Yes, it does. Watching too much TV is bad for your brain, and can make you confuse the real world with a fantasy world. It can keep you from going outside and actually doing something. Too much TV can affect you in many bad ways.
What can watching too much TV do to you? Two thirds of infants watch TV for over 2 hours a day. Kids 8-18 years old spend 4 hours in front of a computer or TV screen. This can be very harmful because it can distract them from homework, the outside world, or even spending time with their family! TV can also be educational because some TV shows help kids learn about thing like the alphabet, and other interesting things. It is also good because there is a news channel that tells you what is going on around the world, and students can learn about animals on shows about nature. TV is good and bad.
http://kidshealth.org...
How does watching TV affect your mind? Watching too much TV has affected many kids minds. For example, if a kid watches a violent or scary video they might feel as if they are in danger or something bad is going to happen to them. Also some kids might see kids acting cool on a TV show, and feel influenced by them. They can start to smoke or dress differently. Kids can be wrongly influenced by many TV shows and movies.
http://kidshealth.org...
How much do commercials affect kids? Kids in The United States see over 40,000 commercials in a year.(http://kidshealth.org...#) These commercials can encourage kids to buy games, electronics, apps, etc. The commercials give false information that the kids believe. These gizmos and gadgets look ideal to them. How can you stop this? You can"t stop kids from seeing commercials no matter what you do, but you can make them watch more public TV shows. They should watch educational TV.
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

I'll make some very short arguments.

Firstly, my opponent concedes children SHOULD watch more than an hour of TV, except educational TV. I agree with this point, but this does not change the fact that it supports my case.

Secondly, my opponent is missing a major premise: just because it causes some harms, it doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. The right for an individual to do as they wish, when an action only effects themself, is enshrined in law. The right to pursue happiness is inalienable.

In short, we have very good reason to believe that children should be allowed to watch more TV. And children should watch more TV, as a personal decision, if it is educational.
Debate Round No. 1
kirmath

Con

First of all, YOU don't know what a kids is watching 24/7. They can change the channel whenever they want. Answer me this. Do you know any kid that watches educational TV? I don't. We can't change the fact that they aren't interested in wildlife and don't read the newspaper. Lastly, the safety of kids can't allow them to have the freedom of choice. Do you want them to be running around the street smoking, and badly influenced?
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

I can make a very safe bet that I know a kid isn't watching TV 24/7. If anyone is doing that, that's a result of bad parenting, not bad TV. If a child is spending more time with their TV than their parents, that's the parent's fault, not the shows.

Secondly, do I know any child that watches educational TV? Yes, many. Most for very young children is educational TV. I personally as an older teenager watch most by far BBC4 (mostly documentaries) and the news.

Finally, the freedom of choice is still paramount. Childrens being hooligans is a result of bad parenting, not television, and fingering it at something as random as television is nonsensical. TV isn't a role model. TV gives varying opinions on issues. And most importantly, most TV shows are fictional. Children understand that shows on TV are fictonal, and as a result aren't going to muck about stabbing people because they saw Ed Edd 'n' Eddy. There's a reason why the amount of children watching TV have the same crime rates as those who don't, but the crime rates for children with feckless parents is massively higher[1].

1 - http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
kirmath

Con

I never said that anyone is watching 24/7, but parents can't keep up with what their kids are watching or when they are watching. I simply meant that the kids are using up all of their free time watching TV rather than going outside, and doing something active. You might watch educational TV, but studies show that kids mostly don't watch educational TV shows. Also, children DON'T understand fiction. They confuse the real world with the fantasy world. However educational the show is, it wont keep them active. Kids that watch TV are likely to be overweight, get bad grades, read fewer books, and exercise less. By far the worst is that they imitate the violence that they observe on television.
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

You say that you never said anyone watches TV 24/7, but you say that I am wrong because I "don't know what a kid is watching 24/7". I'm very confused at this point, and I do not feel capable at deciphering the idea at work.

You say kids are using up all their free time watching TV instead of doing something active, but I can tell you that children spend a lot of their time going out, if motivated or given the opportunity. The TV is easy to access, while meeting new people, we'll all agree, is not something most of us can easily do. The job of the parent is to introduce children to clubs, friends, groups, and get them outside. If they do not do this, they cannot blame TV: they can only blame themselves. If children are simply introvert, though, or enjoy watching educational TV or news, we have no justification to force them outside.

Moreover, children understand fiction. This myth is comical at best: the psychological community has known for a long time: "far from the fantastic nature of cartoons causing confusion between fantasy and reality, the largeness of the gap is helpful to young children in building up precisely this capacity to discriminate"[1]

Finally, we still have no impetus to enforce our views onto other people. The right of both the child to choose what they do and the parent's right to decide what is best for their child is paramount and sacrosanct, and affirming this resolution is a direct challenge to this idea. If we support the existence of the human right to free choice and freedom from censorship we must negate this resolution.

Thank you.

1 - http://www.aber.ac.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
> "Do you know any kid that watches educational TV?"

And yes, quite a few! "Dora's Big Birthday Adventure" had 3.3 million viewers on its first showing. Dora teaches basic Spanish words and phrases like Arriba, Abajo, Vamano, Izquierda, Derecha, Mas Rapido, Mas Despacio, Hola, Hasta Luego, Adios, Buenos Dias, Buenas Noches, Arcoiris, etc. Also, a broad view of education might include shows like "Law & Order", "West Wing", or "ER".
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
I found many of Con's arguments very weak--

> "Parents can't keep up with what their kids are watching or when they are watching. They can change the channel whenever they want."

The parents can place the family TV in a location that is easy to monitor, such as the living or family room. The parent can make and enforce policies on what and how much is watched. The parents can use devices with parental controls to limit channels, shows, and hours.

However, the biggest problem was providing no evidence for their assertions, such as that children can't distinguish fantasy from reality (this is typically a pre-school level skill), that it makes them overweight, and that they generally try to imitate the violence they see.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
kirmathStephen_HawkinsTied
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: All votes to Pro.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 3 years ago
Daktoria
kirmathStephen_HawkinsTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument ignores the immaturity of children and ignores how rights come with responsibilities. Both of these points are emphasized by Con. Freedom of choice does not apply when it comes to sensitive personalities who can be alienated and addicted. Pro also confuses quality with quantity when referring to educational TV.
Vote Placed by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
kirmathStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con: let's make this a learning opportunity. 1) propose this debate as a statement and not a question and 2) structure the resolution in a manner in which you can take Pro. Early in R2, Con started conceding to Pro that kids should watch more than one hour of TV. Right off the bat, the resolution is supported and the debate slips into Pro's hands. Pro successfully caught Con in the confusing R2-R3 exchange about kids not watching TV 24/7 but not knowing what kids are watching 24/7. Argument to Pro. Con provided sources from "kidshealth.com" whereas Pro brought us articles from the BBC. Sources to Pro. Pro's writing structure and grammar are easier to read. S&G to Pro. Conduct was a tie. I think a clearer resolution would have helped me form an opinion beforehand. Con could possibly tweak this around into a debatable issue and win it with some practice. EDIT: I'm countering youmils03's vote b/c he called Con "stinky." Con is a new debator and didn't forfeit against a juggernaut.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
kirmathStephen_HawkinsTied
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: really crappy arguments by the con and the sources he gave were for completely irrelevant points in the debate.... Arguments to the pro.
Vote Placed by youmils03 4 years ago
youmils03
kirmathStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is stinky and unprepared, but Pro doesn't have much strength in his argumentation either. I award 1 point to Pro.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
kirmathStephen_HawkinsTied
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: My vote and analysis somehow disappeared? I will simply point to my commnents as an RFD for awarding arguments to Pro. Con never explained nor provided evidence for his 24/7 argument, which was rather weak and confusing to begin with. Con called him on it. Con also rebutted his fantasy/reality argument w/ sources.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
kirmathStephen_HawkinsTied
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: Con had weak and unconvincing arguments.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
kirmathStephen_HawkinsTied
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: Con states that he does not know any kids that watch educational t.v. I guess he is confusing fiction and reality. I, a 14 year old, and many other of my friends watch educational t.v. Con's arguments are weak and con concedes to pro's arguments.