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

TV is bad for kids

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,518 times Debate No: 30864
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




TV is bad for kids because it really screws up their brains. Research shows that kids under 2 should not be watching ANY TV at all. This is because their brains are still developing. Some shows are also very violent and convince kids to act like them to be "cool." TV also convinces kids to engage in risky behavior, such as sexual intercourse, drugs, and many others. they also give kids nightmares.


I find this particular argument interesting as it addresses what children should do and not do; and also bringing up the development of the child later on thanks to the influences that they were exposed to. Therefore, I"ll attempt to put up a decent argument because I"m somewhat both sided on this. The development of the child is important to look into but I doubt its television that plays a huge role in the development but instead it"s the parents that determine the development of the child such as how they"re going to be brought up.

Your premise of "TV is bad for kids because it really screws up the brain" is too broad because you"re talking about all types of television including televised programs such as PBS Kids that actually help with the development of children by giving an early introduction to the English language and simple mathematics through examples that appeal to the kids interest at that time. Some television actually teaches kids.
Refer to a review (.pdf) in the following link for more supportive information:

By definition of kids however, to somewhat narrow down what you mean; we"re talking about kids who are pre-adolescents (a rough estimate of 2 years of age to about 8 years of age) since adolescence varies as early as 11 years but the common age is around 13 years of age. If I am mistaken about this statement here, please correct me and elaborate on what you mean by kids.

However, my stance on this arguments remains unchanged.
Debate Round No. 1


Although you say these children are still young, they can be influenced by their program they are watching. They might think this behavior is cool and acceptable because they are broadcasting it on tv. They are still young and do not understand. Violence can also be influenced. For example, if a good guy hits the bad guy, the kids will think violence is ok because the bad guy is doing it. In the end, the children think they can also be like the good guy. Although there are shows like PBS, kids might not be interested and the won't keep on watching it, you can't expect a 15 year old to be watching kids shows, most likely, they will want to watch the newest movies, which might be violent. Parents are also allowed to use the v chip. But sometimes, that doesn't work. The v chip wont block any cartoons even if it does have some cartoon violence to it.


You mention a fifteen year old, that isn"t considered as a child but instead is an adolescent. A child above thirteen who is experiencing puberty is considered as adolescents and not a child according to a study conducted by Laurence Steinberg from his text: Adolescence, the ninth edition (currently taking a class on that at this moment). Of course, there are influences that an adolescent may go through and would get the impression that it"s appropriate because it"s considered as "cool". Such influence which may instigate such behaviors is just another way for adolescents to develop their own sense of identity.

Adolescents would be influenced to such things from not just television but all sorts of technologies that may encourage this supposedly cool trend of violent and disorderly behavior. Television is perhaps the just 5% of the influences but another thing that may instigate the violent and disorderly motives behind adolescents are peer groups, the neighborhood they come from, and so forth. By generalizing that television is the reason why we have such a violent youth, then there are a couple of things you are also missing; things OUTSIDE of technology. The only possible solution for "children" according to what you presented from not being exposed to such violent Medias is for the parent to restrict them from being exposed to such things and already that"s difficult because of the many influences that are out there. It"s literally inevitable for adolescents to be sheltered to such influences.

If one would perhaps shelter their child from such things then maybe that can work but in actuality, they are more likely to rebel against them and act even worse to the parents because the child is being restrained from watching whatever they please. Though we wish to find a solution that would put a stop to the impulsive behaviors that adolescents show today, it"s impossible and we would have to grow accustomed to their behaviors and find a way to change them or hope that they"ll understand what they"re doing is wrong.

This is coming from a guy who lives in an inner-city neighborhood where violence happens every day, I can make a long list on the reasons why adolescents today act so violently OUTSIDE of media; maybe that"s an over exaggeration but there are other reasons.
Debate Round No. 2


although you say that the violence happens outside of media, tv can influence this. tv is one of the most influential sources now days. kids will most likely learn from the characters. even though you say that children can learn by using websites such as pbs, there are actually a few bad points to this. studies show that toddlers should not watch tv becasue this could interfere with their brain development. the "educational" shows on pbs last for a long time, and children should not be allowed to watch more that 1 hour of educational programming per day. some kids only watch them just for the fun of it. some children might not want to watch this. violence outside is usually caused by the fact that kids watch a lot of tv, and learn the habits. if these children did not watch tv, there might be less violence.


Television isn"t the center of the world, as this is the impression I"m getting from this argument. There is a lack of statistics that you present in your arguments therefore may cost you the victory of the debate, as I did the same; I am personally speaking through a study that was made by a scholar which its textbook is perhaps too thick for those who isn"t fond of reading. Now, onto the debate:

Television, as I said before isn"t one of the reasons. There are many things that influence the impulsive behaviors such as other adolescents who developed such rebellious thinking and decision making due to the neighborhood and living conditions that they come from. If we"re speaking from an idolize perspective then perhaps television can be a influential factor but realistically speaking, television isn"t the cause, it"s more or less the people whom they associate with outside of televised media and how they were brought up.

Television does promote such shows that may be too violent and to the parent or youth advocate, it"s perhaps a bad influence but it"s inevitable. You cannot justify that television is the root evil of all violence that happens within the youth, if that be the case; then wouldn"t the government removed television by now to prevent such things?
From a jokingly perspective, could the reason why we go to war is because we saw an amazing war movie or played video games such as "Call of Duty" or "Gears of War" that had so much gore and then we believe: "What the hell? Let"s go and kill people because that movie made it look awesome!" to "I hate you, therefore when I see you" I"m going to have an AK-47 at hand and blast your head open for disrespecting me!" You see where I"m coming from with this? Are these legitimate motives for people to go to war just because it looked so cool? There"s more to it than that obviously, same thing with television " there is more to the adolescent violence and rowdiness than just television.
Yes, there is some evidence things on television promote such reckless behavior for example the series Jersey Shore where it promotes a lot of drinking, sexual contact, the night life and fighting but again, it"s not the fault of the television it"s the parents and it"s almost impossible for parents to have control of this because well" adolescents have their way in getting around it.

I think you"re trying to develop a utopian perspective where if we ban television then everything will be a better place. Trust me, we all wish that and from the looks of things (outside of television) it"s not happening.

Even though my argument isn"t as great as I wanted to be, blame midterm week.

With that! VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by katrilenyah 4 years ago
Technically TV is not bad for children. I am 15 and I watch a lot of Criminal Minds and CSI. I don't think that murder is "COOL" because of it, it has actually inspired me to invest my future into learning and getting the education to become a behavioral analyst or forensic psychologist. It's helped me through out school and TV also helps children develop several forms of imagination which is substantial for a child's development. TV may also give a child an idea of what an idea of what the world is like philosophically.
Posted by Mino 4 years ago
Pretty much anything in a developing child's environment affects how its brain develops.
Posted by cybertron1998 4 years ago
by saying tv is bad for kids you basically say that imagination is bad for kids imagination is a glorious thing that should not be stopped
Posted by Halpher 4 years ago
Con is more intelligent
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TD_Cole 4 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro shows justified reasons, But nothing to back Pro on what he suggests. Try to use sources next time. Con uses sources and the fact that educational TV isn't necessarily bad for children. There are more educational TV programs other than what Con says. Such as Dora and Diego. Dora teaches Spanish to kids. How is that bad for children to start picking up a second language? Although they might be doing it for fun, Pro doesn't say whether or not they are actually learning. If they are then how is TV bad for kids. Pro suggests all TV programs are bad to children via violent TV. Learning programs are not violent though so it clearly is on the matter of the parents to have their children watch things that will help. There is a such thing as education TV for kids only. If they hurt them then why would they be placed on TV for them to learn? I vote for Con. Pro mentions studies but absolutely no resources to back it up on.