The Instigator
The_MasterDebater
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
The_Master_Riddler
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

THB that the government should regulate the amount of TV and video games children watch

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 1 vote the winner is...
The_Master_Riddler
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 950 times Debate No: 42761
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

The_MasterDebater

Con

I am defining children as people between the ages of 10 and 18
I
contention 1: TV and video games distort reality.
Contention 2: The majority of games children play are violent
contention 3: it has been proven that tv and video games influence obesity rates
The_Master_Riddler

Pro

This House will be The United States.
Television will be a screen that is not compatible to a Wi-Fi connection.
Videogames will be a virtual reality created by the major platforms: Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.

Contention One: Freedom of Speech
Contention Two: Educational Purposes
Contention Three: Decision should be made by adults.

Please Note: my opponent is the negative, but is making arguments for the affirmative. Thus, we must assume that he is the affirmative and I am the negative. Thus, he has the burden of proof.

I accept his challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
The_MasterDebater

Con

TV was invented in the early 1920"s and video games were developed in the early 1970"s but both have now become an invariable source of fun and entertainment for children. There is no denying that children love to watch TV and play video games. Some of these shows and games were for fun and educational, but throughout the years of technological advances, they have evolved to new levels creating controversy among society.The amount of children that stare at a TV screen for several hours a day has grown so profusely that it has been labeled an epidemic. An average child watches a total of 28 hours of television a week. The amount of time spent playing video games or watching TV, and the types of games/shows children watch/play will influence their behavior in a major way. By the time a child finishes high school he/she will have seen 8,000 TV deaths. Video games have the most negative psychological effects including: a decrease in social skills, increased aggressive thoughts, behaviors, and feelings and increased physiological arousal. Studies show that a family that has the TV on all the time usually speak 200 words an hour to their child but a family that does not regularly have the TV on speaks about 1000 words per hour. so not only have video games proven to be a complete waste of time but they also have proven to decrease the growth of a child. oh and thanks for understanding the misunderstanding about the pro and con
The_Master_Riddler

Pro

No problem.

First I am going to attack my opponent's framework.
TV and video games distort reality.
Just because something distorts reality doesn't make it a bad thing. My opponent must provide substantial evidence that the distortion of reality is bad.
The majority of games children play are violent
This may be true but this statement counters my opponent first contention that this distorts reality. Violent videogames show an unseen reality. It educates children on a reality unseen to the common person. Just because a reality is unseen does not make it a distortion of reality.
it has been proven that tv and video games influence obesity rates
First, my opponent needs to provide statistics that prove this. Second, just because something contributes to the obesity epidemic doesn't mean it should be regulated. Food increases obesity rates, however we don't regulate it. Thus, this is refuted.

Now to my framework.
Freedom of Speech.
When you portray messages on television, it speaks a message. Whatever that message speaks, you are entitled to say it, with the exception of pornography, but that is a different reason. It has been proven that regulating what goes on television, with the Citizen's United Versus FEC, is unconstitutional.
Parents decision
The government is not liable to the parenting of children. If the government was to regulate what they thought was good, it would hamper the individual needs of the child, and for the government to regulate how long and what television the individual child watched would infringe upon 1st and 4th amendments (NSA!).
Educational Purposes
Many television shows are educational. If the government controlled how much television you watched, children might lose out on educational shows that would benefit them greatly.

For these reasons, vote for me.
Debate Round No. 2
The_MasterDebater

Con

ok you want "substantial evidence" here it is

Dallas - A 7-year-old Dallas boy copying a move he saw in televised pro wrestling killed his 3-year-old brother, police said on Thursday. Dallas police said the older boy slammed his little brother to the floor with a running straight-armed punch to the neck in late May.
"He said he had seen it on pro wrestling on cable television and he thought that his brother was just gonna get up," police spokesman Officer Gabriel Grimes said, referring to the 7-year-old.
The maneuver is called a "clothesline" or "lariat" in the violent and flashy world of televised wrestling. The incident, which police said occurred on May 23 or 24, came to light on Thursday when it was reported by the Dallas Morning News.

more you ask well here you go:

A 15-year-old video-game fanatic accused of killing his parents and three younger siblings because he was mad at his mom will be tried as an adult, a New Mexico prosecutor announced Tuesday.
Nehemiah Griego was being held without bail in a juvenile facility as authorities revealed that he was "unemotional" when talking about the massacre but perked up when he talked about his love of violent games, including "Modern Warfare" and "Grand Theft Auto."
"It was kind of what he was into and was quite excited as he got the opportunity to discuss that with investigators," Bernalillo County Sheriff Dan Houston said a news conference.
he said," It was kind of funny, i was thinkin bout this one mission on COD it was freakin insane but i thought they were gonna respawn in like 5 seconds."

An estimated 12.5 million children between the ages of 2 and 19 are obese, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although genetics and diet play pivotal roles in childhood obesity, the CDC also notes that passive media viewing can contribute to this epidemic. That said, sitting in front of the screen playing video games can play a part in your child developing a weight problem. Although your child may say that he's "playing" a video game, what he is doing may look more like sitting than other play-type activities. Unlike playing on a playground, playing at the park or playing a sport, playing a video game is largely passive for most children. Similar to TV viewing, the passive aspect of video game play takes away from true physical activity and may lead to weight gain. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics -- on its HealthyChildren.org website -- notes that children who watch five or more hours of TV per day have a four-and-a-half times greater risk of being overweight than those who watch two hours or less. My opponent also states that the children might miss out on educational programming but scientist have proven that a child with more human contact will better the childes life in the long run because parents usually speak 200 words an hour to their child when the TV is on but a family that does not regularly have the TV on speaks about 1000 words per hour. so not only have video games proven to be a complete waste of time but they also have proven to decrease the growth of a child
The_Master_Riddler

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.
My opponent and I believe can agree that television can serve both good and bad purposes. However, my opponent has failed to argue that the government should regulate television. My opponent has provided substantial evidence that television is bad. However, that doesn't mean that television is bad. Television is a product that exports media. Thus, if it was regulated, people will find a different way to be exposed to media. They might use their computers instead of tv, a more versatile thing for entertainment. It is the parent's job to regulate tevelvision. This is an argument that has been dropped in the previous speech made by my opponent.

An estimated 12.5 million children between the ages of 2 and 19 are obese, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although genetics and diet play pivotal roles in childhood obesity, the CDC also notes that passive media viewing can contribute to this epidemic.

This is misguiding because one, it states that it can contribute to obesity, not that it does. Also, should kids be punished under the basic actions of a select population of people. So why not the government regulate television for certain people? Because it is against the 14th amendment. For the government to regulate certain childrens television is discrimination and to regulate everyone would be an infringment of the freedom of speech because the television will be turned off at certain times to keep from the excessive watching of television. But doing this cuts off the message of the director of the show. This is unconstitional, for example the Citizen's United v. FEC.

My opponent has provided evidence that shows the government should regulate television.
He has stated that television is bad. But television has some beneficial factors to it also: Discovery Channel, History Channel, PBS, and others. These channels are educational
My opponent stated that kids will see over 8000 deaths. He has not stated why that is a bad thing, especially since over 2 million people die in the US each year. The exposure to death is a good thing because it desensitizes them, not so that they don't feel sad for a long time, but that they might have a quick recovery which is not a bad thing at all.

All arguments I made were dropped by my opponent. Extend all arguments.

Vote for me!
http://www.cdc.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
The_MasterDebater

Con

The_MasterDebater forfeited this round.
The_Master_Riddler

Pro

Extend all arguments made by me in round two. I will go through my opponents main arguments in the first speech and tell you why you should vote for me.

TV and video games distort reality.
A distortion of reality is never always a bad thing. A distortion is an exaggeration. For example, many of the claims made in global warming videos are a distortion of reality. However, the compelling message persuades people to do a good deed. Thus, the distortion of reality is not always a bad thing.

The majority of games children play are violent
Most violent videogames my opponent is referring to is rated mature, thus the person who purchased it must have been mature. The sad thing however, is that adults are buying these games for children to play. However, for the government to regulate who plays what videogames at what time is a violation of the 4th amendment. If my opponent advocates the banning of all violent videogames, it is an infringment on the first amendment. However, if my opponent advocates for the control of who plays what, it would be an infringment on the 4th amendment because 1) they would have to know who is in the house playing the game. They would literally be watching who plays the game at what time, which is a violation of the 4th amendment since playing videogames is not a crime.

it has been proven that tv and video games influence obesity rates
Food increases obesity. Should we regulate that? Computer programmers sit in front of a computer every day for 10 hours. Should they lose their jobs just because they might gain weight? No!

Here is why you should vote for me:
My opponent has failed to uphold his burden of proof that the government should regulate internet.
My opponent has failed to uphold two of his arguments and provide links to all of his arguments. He has never explained why the distortion of reality is bad. He has never explained why exposure to death is bad. He has never even explained why violent games should be regulated other than the simple fact that someone who killed another was interested in CoD. That is also an example of casuation and not causation. There are many people who were very violent that did not play videogames.
My opponent spent the entirety of his speech defending his side, while forgetting to argue any of my points.

For these reasons, vote for me.

Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by The_Master_Riddler 3 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
Lol I agree.
Posted by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
the goverment has yet to do anything well why give them more power?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
The_MasterDebaterThe_Master_RiddlerTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Due to the forfeit on con's side, pro wins arguments and conduct/