TV is bad for kids
Debate Rounds (3)
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: http://pbskids.org...
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.
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.
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!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TD_Cole 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
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.
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.