Should media be rated
Debate Rounds (2)
It is important to note that Pro's assertion is so general that following his assertion it would mean Google also should be rated, i'm not sure what Pro's argument is exactly but that to me doesn't seem to make sense. Furthermore since newspapers also fall under media that means they should be rated too. Why should we rate informative media outlets which actually empower children by giving them more knowledge about the world around them? Should we according to Pro rate and censor newspapers and deny future generations knowledge of their surroundings to the point that they barely know anything that happens outside of their homes.
Lastly rating media outlets would only serve to stifle creativity by limiting the amount of information available to children. It would also essentially limit the right of freedom of expression,by rating certain sites, which if adopted universally across the board as Pro suggests could be done arbitrarily. For example Governments could take a decision to "rate" and censor a site that criticizes their authority under the guise of "rating" it as unsafe . We might end up with a situation similar to that of China were a lot of informative sites and media outlets are banned.
Adrian199004 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.