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

'The Interview' is a disgusting film and should be banned

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 971 times Debate No: 67611
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




Imagine if an Eastern super power like China created a film that utterly sucked every piece of credibility out of a Western country like the USA or the UK. What would our reaction be if a film was made depicting the assassination of one of our leaders, and done so in a comical fashion?

North Korea are not a terrorist country - they aren't in any way affiliated with the war on terrorism, 9/11, the war in Eastern Europe or the Taliban - they're simply a strictly governed country that sustains a different political structure to us. The East will never understand democracy and we will never understand anything that isn't democracy - just because North Korea have a dictator doesn't mean we need to ignite a war over it.

'The Interview' is an act of war, and a very explicit one. North Korea have every right to defend themselves, and have every right to blow the Western world into oblivion after this disgrace of a film. Of course, North Korea have done the sensible thing and contacted the United Nations, who incidentally have done nothing.

The world's goal should be to unite all the nations, end war, finish hunger and demolish hatred. But with the US (and other countries) continually bouncing that ball of hatred across the world, we're hastily distancing ourselves from that goal. Although the film is comical and 'just a joke' that shouldn't be taken seriously, 'The Interview' is a film that conveys terrorism (the same method of terrorism that happened to JFK) to be a humorous ordeal.


I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I gathered you'd accepted the debate when you're name and picture appeared on the 'con' side of this page a couple of days ago. Do you wish to present your argument against mine now?


Ajabi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Still awaiting the con's side of the argument...


Urgh time left me so I did not get a chance to write an argument. As this is the last round I cannot provide any arguments that is true, but I can provide refutations. Negative cases, even new refutations, are allowed.[1] So while Conduct points should go to my opponent, I believe I do still win this debate. The reason is that my opponent never fulfilled his burden of proof. The resolution places the entire burden on my opponent, and he never really gave an argument. He may have given an introduction, but never an argument. Since the rule follows "onus probandi incumbet ei qui deciet, non ei qui negat" I have no burden of proof. My opponent is affirming the resolution, is the Proposition, and is giving the positive legislation. He is also the one wanting to change something.

In the end he never talks about "value" (I summon hither the Spirit of Zaradi). He never shows why there is greater value in banning the film, and does not give any sort of an argument altogether.

I am not going to spend a lot of time here, in short the resolution uses the word "disgusting" let us see how this word is defined.
  1. arousing revulsion or strong indignation.
By the resolution my opponent has to show that this movie viz. "The Interview" is necessarily disgusting for everyone. He had to show that this arousal of revulsion and strong indignation comes to every single person, being and thing. Well I watched it, and I did not think it was disgusting at all.

My opponent defends North Korea, and talks about world terrorism, stuff I cannot anwer to because that would become positive. I can onlyy offer burden of proof analysis as pure negative criticism. Thing is, I still win. Consider this, and this alone, has my opponent successfully shown that the movie arouses this sense of revulsion in everyone. If he has then has he shown why this feeling of revulsion should warrant banning. If he has, hand him the win, if he has not, I win.

I know I am playing with semantics, but its the truth. The burden my opponent took upon himself was one he never justified, by that order I win this debate. Thank you.


Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TheTragicLifeofFrank 2 years ago
Wow, so Ajabi doesn't even post an argument and assumes his victory - what an arrogant little monkey.
Posted by McCool 2 years ago
Imagine if North Korea made a film about assassinating Obama, all hell would break loose. This movie has to go.
Posted by BlisterzOnMeFingaz 2 years ago
west has a way of denouncing everyone who is not "them". Some people are smart enough to just see those things and call bulls**t on them. Anyway i think that movie is just suckling on the lovely tits of a very popular subject on internet and conventional media: Kim Jong Un. Doubt that it is some evil indoctrination. What baffles me is that fat curly haired ugly twat is such a big star. jjjjeeeeeeewwwwwwwwww
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Valar_Dohaeris 2 years ago
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: I watched it and did not throw up and or was repulsed . The Muslim guy negated napoleons only argument. No BOP was upheld, leaving this debate to con.
Vote Placed by The_Gatherer 2 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 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: Con is correct that Pro did not fulfill his burden of truth.