'The Interview' is a disgusting film and should be banned
Debate Rounds (4)
You have messages disabled so here is my formal invitation.
I saw your recent debate on this topic and feel I could do a slightly better job of defending the film than your opponent who had time constraints.
You may either begin in round 1, or use it for acceptance and I will begin in round 2.
You will contend that 'The Interview' ought to be banned, I will vehemently defend the production.
Four rounds, 72 hours, 8k characters, 10-day voting period.
I hope you agree to the terms of the debate and accept the challenge.
I'd just to like to point out at this stage to the debater and the voters that I'm not a skeptic, anti-comic or anything affiliated with these titles - I love comedy and I'm a very light hearted person. But 'The Interview', despite being engulfed in positive media attention and after Sony's masterful sales stunt, presenting itself as rising symbol for the 'American dream' and free speech in Western culture, I strongly believe that anyone that pauses to dig under the glossy white snow of the movie will find a heap of maggot-filled American dog crap.
What is the purpose of a movie in the genre of comedy? First of all, to make people laugh and secondly, to entertain the viewer through the ignition of this emotion. I can almost certainly guarantee that 'The Interview' has succeeded in doing this for the most part throughout the US and other similar Western countries. However, the question that needs to be asked now is, was it worth it for all the intensity it has sparked in North Korea, a country that has already warned of its hostility due to US provocation? The film isn't exactly a blockbuster and the the main catalyst for sales was the featuring of Rogen and Franco throughout the movie who where already Internet cult hits through their strange partnership in the series of spoof music videos they did last year. I can't deny that the film is definitely a movie that could be defined as humourous but I felt shockingly terrible after even the slightest of giggles.
I'm not defending North Korea. Their human rights are shocking and after digging deeper than the click-baited headlines of Bing and The Daily Mail, I've realised that they are by no means a perfect country - but neither are the US, who incidentally are one of the most corrupt countries on the planet along with countries like Russia and China. However, North Korea are not a terrorist country like the media has illustrated them to be. They are not in any way in association with ISIS, the war in Eastern Europe or the infamous Taliban, and they most certainly have absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, which was a very poignant standing point for many Americans who proclaimed that the film must be released to protect the vows made by the US government after the buildings were torn down. North Korea are simply an extremely strict country that runs a vastly different political and social structure to us. Generally speaking, the East will never understand democracy and the West will never understand anything that isn't democracy, but that doesn't mean we should stab each other in the back just because we don't believe in each others ideas. Simply because North Korea are ruled by a dictator and live by contrasting rules to western countries like ours, doesn't mean we should alienate them as some unknown evil force that only has the desire to attack and kill everything it sees.
The film is undeniably an act of war in the most blatant of forms and I would be stunned if North Korea didn't fight back with a physical, justified method of retaliation. When you look back to the lead up to the first world war, the causes of the outbreak of the international conflict were quite simple; a build up of tensions in certain parts of Europe (the Balkans) and the assassination of a country's leader (Franz Ferdinand). Of course, it's 2014 and we've definitely learnt an abundance from our crucial errors in the past, but it's very likely that this movie (along with other things like the rise of ISIS and the tensions between Ukraine and Russia) could lead to a global conflict. It doesn't matter how comical the film was created to be, it still depicts the murder of a REAL world leader - it wouldn't matter if the film was presented in the genre of horror, romance, or just straight up action and adventure, the film paints the picture of a legitimate act of terrorism and that alone is morally wrong.
Thank you for accepting the debate, and for your round.
As an introduction, I'd like to open with this food for thought:
According to international law, there are four ways a state can lose its sovereignty(0.5).
1. Irresponsible development of nuclear weapons violating the non-proliferation act in letter or spirit
2. Invading and aggression against other sovereign nations
4. Playing hosts to terrorists
North Korea has done all four.
Firstly, you are drawing an obvious false analogy with Kennedy. The proper analogue would be a film about assassinating Obama. The North Korean government has already released videos of edited in-game and trailer footage of Call of Duty and a rocket ship video depicting the apocalyptic annihilation of the United States(1). This was done well before 'The Interview' began production.
Secondly, this is not a a conflict-of-ideology issue. This is not a Vietnam, or a Cuba, or a China (all socialist regimes). This is not a Russia or an Afghanistan. This is a despotic, hermetic kingdom which has breached all of the possible conditions of sovereignty, including threating the use of apocalyptic weapons. If you want to talk about inflammatory, just read a DPRK statement about their nuclear proliferation, or examine their recent ICBM testing over Japan.
As an extension of point two, it is critical to point out that ridicule is the most effective form of effecting change. DPRK threatened real terorist attacks in the US because of a movie. This is impermissible. They are not players in the international community, they are deliberately and purposfully scratching at the global fabric the rest of us have been trying to weave since the end of the second world war. They are stuck in an archaic necropracy and the people are suffering as a result. Showing not only the rest of the world, but the civilians in North Korea, the truth about their government, will be instrumental in finally effecting changing.
George Orwell poignantly observed that, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act". He is most certianly correct. The DPRK was established the same year that 1984 was published, and as the late Christopher Hitchens astutely noted, "It's as if someone gave Kim Il-Sun a copy of 1984 and asked if he thought they could make it fly".
Thirdly, you neglect to include the fact that the movie is somewhat based on reality; Vice News took a trip to North Korea last year to meet Kim Jong-Un and they had a basketball clinic (2). In fact, even the part about the fake grocery stores is true; they smuggled video cameras into North Korea and you can see what it's really like, and how the people really are suffering at the hands of a malicious and corrupt government (3).
As it happens, I think the film was poorly paced and not particularly funny. But the fact that it was still released in the face of intimidation, on a topic that desperately needs addressing, is an important indicator of something greater than contemporary political disputes. It highlights a changing world; social media and the Internet gave rise, at least temporarily, to the Arab Spring. People have hope. We can give the innocent North Korean people hope.
I would also like to address your contention that Democracy won't work in the East by pointing to the pretty obvious example of South Korea.
While I agree they aren't involved in many unrelated world conflicts (why would they be) they actually are in bed with the Taliban and they have tanks in the middle-east, check it out(4), (5). Also, what does 9/11 have to do with this?
Finally, you are so very wrong about a film being an act of war. This is were supression and censorship starts. If a person is beheded for making a cartoon, it is the beheder's fault, not the cartoonist. If a police officer is shot for the actions of another police officer, it is the shooter's fault, not the police officer. If a man kils his daughter for becoming an apostate, he is to blame, not her. If a woman is raped for wearing revealing clothing, it is the rapist's fault. Blaming the West for terrorist attacks because of a movie is atrocious logical and no amount of Bush-adminstration spin-doctoring is going to get you out of that one.
In summary, while I agree with your (frankly) trite observation that it was "maggot-filled American dog crap" (how very original), and I disagree that it was particularly funny (I found it rather boring) the point remains that banning this film plays into the censorship that you as a writer should be fighting against. It is a genuine expression of grivences about the mistreatment of a population of impoverished, downtrodden, Ingsoc-duckspeaking, Big Brother-loving people who deserve a chance at reuinification.
This isn't just a clash of ideologies. This is a fundamental human rights problem, and it's one that the rest of the world shares. We are burdened by their fate. Their suffering makes our lives poorer. They have violated the terms of their sovereignty and this is why it goes from "not understanding a different culture" to a malignant mole on the skin of our fragile planet.
However, the dark history between North Korea and the United States has absolutely nothing to do with the argument that this film should be banned and it seems that your argument is based solely around the concept of justified revenge. You seem to believe that 'The Interview' is a positive creation because North Korea deserves to be humiliated - but what's ironic about this is that the Western nations (predominantly Christian countries) have always boasted ideologies and systems based on freedom and forgiveness. This film is the epitome of the concept of 'an eye for an eye' and that in itself is the worst basis for any film and makes your argument seem pointless, given that revenge is the most ineffective way of solving any international problem and inevitably worsens the situation.
Shove politics, human rights and international hatred aside however, and this film is still fundamentally wrong and in no way could ever have made the world a better place. Every time someone purchases the movie, Sony and other involved tax-dodging corporations get richer, you get poorer and the chances of an international conflict occurring over the next few years have increased. Ask yourself the following questions and try to answer them as impartially as possible:
Does the film 'The Interview' make relations between the West and East healthier?
Does the film 'The Interview' increase the chances of another costly brutal war between North Korea and the USA?
Does the film 'The Interview' worth the couple of hours of trifling humour in comparison to the offence and damage that it has/could cause?
The moral answer to all of these questions are no. The film is extremely offensive to North Korea and could start another conflict.
You claim that the NK government have already published videos depicting terrorist attacks on the USA. This is totally false. The NK government were never proven to be behind any of the edited videos and the most likely creators of the content were of roque North Korean based hackers. In any case, the extent of offence projected from a professionally produced movie inclusive of celebrity actors and top-notch special effects can not be compared to a measly one minute video that may or may not have anything to do with the reign of Kim.
Every powerful first-world nation possesses weapons of mass destruction - and in my honest opinion I would say that any weaponry designed for the purpose of destroying another living thing is irresponsible and fundamentally a crime against humanity. At the end of the day, it's the USA that vigorously dropped bombs over North Korean soil causing millions of slow and painful deaths for soldiers and innocent civilians. North Korea, despite irresponsibly boasting to the US their new-found military technology, have yet to place them into real action, whereas the USA already have, including the bombs dropped in Japan around World War Two.
You're argument eliciting the idea that the movie is an effective method of informing people (including the citizens of North Korea) of how corrupt and broken the NK government is, is a nonsensical argument to say the least. There's no way on Earth that this film will ever reach the working people of North Korea and there's absolutely no way that this will film was designed to do so. The movie was created due to an exuberant burst in media attention for Kim Jong Un and North Korea, making it an effective cash cow for Sony and it's friends. Although the movie does subtly relate to legitimate North Korean commodities, the film is a comedy, featuring comic actors and screenplays that capture the tongue and cheek of modern American humour, not the facts and realities of North Korea.
You said: "ridicule is the most effective form of effecting change".
If this is what you genuinely think then please seek professional psychological assistance immediately. How in any way, shape or form does ridiculing your foe ignite any form of positive transition? The NK government have already rigidly stressed their reaction to the movie and it's certainly not a positive one that's revoked any sort of positive change in the mindset of Kim Jong Un and his associates. Without question, 'The Interview' has made international affairs between the USA and North Korea more futile than previously. The most effective way of sparking a change in international relations is not through the medium of revenge or spite, but through forgiveness and negotiation - just look at the recent unification of the USA and Cuba, formerly sworn enemies for decades.
Admittedly, the quote you used by George Orwell is powerful, but also entirely irrelevant to this argument. The film is a fictional comedy based on events and places speculated in the media, and therefore is not a beacon of truth for any viewers of the film.
Your main argument seems to be that 'The Interview' was made to spark a positive revolution in the USA and North Korea regarding the corrupt system that flows untouchable through the streets of Pyongyang and surrounding provinces in North Korea. This is garbage - the film was never said to have been made to inform and inspire the people, it was created to generate revenue and to kick up a few cheap laughs among US citizens.
'The Interview' serves no humane purpose on this Earth and is only a beacon of immaturity regarding our species. North Korea does this, so the USA does that, and then North Korea does this, and then the USA created a movie displaying the murder of North Korea's leader in the form of comedy - it's like two arguing kids in a playground and it's pathetic.
Thank you for your round.
I'm afraid I must fundamentally disagree with not just your position and your arguments, but even the lens through which you're looking at this topic.
Firstly, the entirety of your debate is framed around colour; that is, what colour which pot is calling whose kettle. Let me make something perfectly clear: whatever the United States has done is or is doing has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the crimes against humanity being perpetrated by DPRK. You are committing the Tu Quoque fallacy, a form of Red Herring(1).
It is intellectually dishonest to say that because America does something wrong, that excuses the behaviour of DPRK. Be serious. And besides, why are you exclusively talking about the States? Just because an independent production company is based there? You do know the rest of the world is sanctioning the DPRK for their crimes against the earth, right? Like it's not just the US. Even NK's one ally, China, have started massing troops on the border to stop all the NK defectors escaping into China because they're all dying. What does it tell you when the hermit kingdom's one ally starts militarising their border? Once again, saying this is merely a conflict of ideology is analogous to saying that we shouldn't stop the Holocaust because 'it's just a conflict of ideology'. There are bad people on this planet, Frank.
Secondly, you claim that I have made a false statement about the North's video showing the destruction of the US because it was released by 'hackers'. The video I am talking about was released almost two years ago, in February 2013. You are conflating the recent Sony events and the hacking scandal with an actual press release from the Cabinet and Ministry of Internal Affairs in Pyongyang. The video I posted to you is an official release of the Government(2).
You then claim that every first-world nation possess WMDs, which is obviously not true. There are only nine countries in the world that possess WMDs(3). Precisely none of the elected UNSC members have WMDs. Same as last election cycle. And the cycle before that(5) You are misframing the problem of nuclear proliferation. The U.S. is not actively threatening other states with nuclear violence, and even if it were, this still would not in any way validate the DPRK's behaviour.
Then, in your most shameful exposition, you begin a completely false and misleading diatribe about 'revenge', which I won't even pick apart here because of its absurdity. Revenge for what? For starving their own people? For creating mass internal suffering and for running a once powerful economy into the salted dirt? For giving their civilians nothing but the assurance of anguish and death? For running forced labour camps and using mortars as a form of punishment?(4)
When one ridicules an ideology, one devalues its power. That is the point. When you talk about forgiveness, that assumes that it is a grievance perpetrated against the U.S. and the West. That is not the origin of the grievance. The grievance is against what the DPRK Government is doing to its own people, not just the threats it makes to us.
You have entirely missed the allegory and depth of Orwell's words in this case. The specific details about basketball etc are not the point. The point is about a totalitarian regime which is causing it's own people to waste and atrophy until the only enrichment of the soil becomes the tillers' blood and bones.
You disapprove of a movie because it is 'offensive'. This does not constitute and argument. As the Hitch said, "when someone tells me they're offended by something I've said, I tell them I'm still waiting to hear what your argument is". Saying you're offended by the truth is a cop out. Not the specific details about Franco riding around in a tank listening to Katy Perry with Un. You need to dive through the superficial waters paddling the lake of ignorance and discover the murky depths below.
The truth lies in the belly of the lake, being slowly digested. It is well past time to tickle the tonsils of the beast.
Banning 'The Interview' would be an immoral violation of freedom of speech, and would remove an avenue of discussing serious global and internal issues. Banning media of this nature would constitute a crime against humanity.
You make the point that the crimes committed by the USA are not comparable to the crimes committed by North Korea - this is true, but the point I made was that both nations are on the same ship rapidly sinking in a vast ocean of evil and corruption and therefore are marginally just as crude as each other. Regardless of the two nations' crimes, it does NOT excuse the making of 'The Interview' which has only made international relations between the two governments more putrid than before. Two wrongs don't make a right and it would have been a valuable idea for this film not to have been released and to channel more time into trying to reason with North Korea. The USA had and have the power to influence the release of films and other content, but Obama has encouraged the release of 'The Interview' and has therefore accepted all responsibility for the controversy that comes with the release.
I never stated that the wrongs of the USA excuse the misdoings of North Korea - that is a fallacy. What I said is that the USA have actually more brutally affected North Korea in the past than North Korea has ever affected the USA. North Korea have threatened nuclear strikes on the USA and many people perceive these threats as an irresponsible act of evil. And it's true, it is irresponsible and evil, but they're just threats. The USA have already affected North Korea with more than just threats in their murdering of millions of North Koreans with intense bomb strikes during the Korean War which decimated 30% of the North Korean population (http://bit.ly...). However, as I stated before, past relations between North Korea and the USA are irrelevant to the argument that 'The Interview' only makes the situation worse and only increases the chances of another conflict.
The world is trying to dismantle North Korea via sanctions and military presences scattered across its border and I fully accept this as a useful method of containing North Korea as an imperialist state, but how does this justify the making of a film that only fuels their motivation to destroy the USA? Again, the undeniable truth is that 'The Interview' only makes the nightmarish situation even more of a succubus that the entire globe will eventually have to deal with.
You yourself have committed to using the appeal to hypocrisy in the form of a red herring by attempting to counter my argument by stating that 'The Interview' is justified because North Korea have already conceptualised similar multimedia content previous to the making of the movie. The past is irrelevant and it's integral to realise that relations between the USA and North Korea were already sour, but 'The Interview' has only worsened things even further and not benefited society in the slightest.
You're right, the concept of revenge that fabricated one of your previous arguments was one of your most shameful altercations. The idea that 'The Interview' is worthy of avenging North Korea through ridicule is child's play and doesn't deserve any recognition as a credible argument. Revenge is not a political method of dealing with another country and the USA should have known that 'The Interview' would only crush any hope of forming an alliance with North Korea in the future - potentially the only way of saving the people of North Korea.
I am somewhat in disbelief that you are still harping on about that quote. How on Earth has 'The Interview' devalued North Korea's power? Any logical thinker would see that the making of this film has only made North Korea more motivated than ever to take serious countermeasures against the USA. If anything, 'The Interview' only devalues the USA's perceived power as it identifies the USA's lack of ability to take any real action against North Korea's government.
Once again, you're cherry picking words that you wish I'd said in order to bolster your own argument. I never said I found 'The Interview' offensive. The rising issue that surrounds this beacon of world war three is that the film GREATLY offends North Korea and it's people. This is genuinely the most prominent purpose of this film along with generating revenue for Sony and that on it's own is wrong. I don't care about the offense taken by North Korea or its people, it's the serious countermeasures that follow their vowed threats.
Banning 'The Interview' would in no way be a breach of the 'Freedom of Speech' act. It's a film, not an emotive soliloquy against the tyranny of the government. Films and other content shouldn't just be released for the sake of freedom. Certain content is and should be moderated for the purpose of protecting ourselves. For example, The Human Centipede was never candidly released across the US and other Western countries exempt of censorship in order to protect people from watching one of the most disturbing movies of all time. Is it a crime against humanity not to release The Human Centipede? Common sense logic should dictate what hits the shelf, not irrational leaps of faith and freedom. Of course, 'The Interview' was exclusively released in Western countries whereby no offence would be taken by viewers of the movie, but with great power comes great responsibility - the USA should have know much better than to allow the release of a film that they knew would only stir the anger of North Korea even further. It's not offending North Korea that we should be concerned about though, it's what they do in reply to the offence that should be our primary worry.
The banning of this film would be a useful stepping stone into more diplomatic relations with North Korea which could potentially solve a lot of issues regarding North Korea's broken society. But as long as Sony and the US government allow this film to sustain it's public accessibility, North Korea will stay broken and alienated from the rest of the world and the chances of another conflict will remain at an all time high.
Thank you to my opponent for a stimulating debate.
In this, my final round, I will summarise the themes and directions of the debate, repudiate my opponents arguments, expound upon my own and finally leave my opponent and the audience with absolutely no doubt that 'The Interview' ought not be banned.
That because the movie is offensive to the North Korean government, it should be censored. In addition, the film is likely to cause an elevation in the risk of global conflict, and for that reason, the movie ought not be shown.
The North Korean government is substantially more offensive than the film portraying it. Any person or group of people who threaten violence in response to nothing more than a movie are bullies and terrorists and we should not submit ourselves to their dictate, as their people are forced to by famine and violence. Criticism of authority and freedom of speech are rights which are not afforded to the North Korean people, and we should exercise our rights on their behalf, by proxy.
- "The purpose of this debate was for me to prove my point that 'The Interview' is morally wrong and could lead to genuine consequences for the USA and other Western countries while your goal is to try to prove that it serves a noble purpose on this planet, but all you've spouted thus far is drivel regarding North Korea and how they're the most manically evil nation ever spat out onto this Earth." Here, Frank is using 'flail' and 'tail whip' in an awkward attempt to invalidate my arguments instead of refuting them. Of course, the action that he says I am obligated to undertake in order to win the debate is exactly what he says I've done by describing how they are essentially a maniac state. To be fair, I then went further to discuss why the movie is important in addressing this. I won't repeat myself here but I was very clear on this point.
- I did not say that the crimes committed by the US aren't comparable. I said that just because the US commits crimes, that serves as no validation for the crimes committed by NK. I described this as the Tu Quoque fallacy and gave you a reference to the definition and explanation.
- You go on to conflate the actions of the U.S. government and Sony as if they were in the same league. Note that Sony does not represent the American government. On the other hand, the NK government is a state entity. See the difference? If this had come out of the Foreign Secretary's office, you'd have the ghost of a point. But even then, only a ghost. As it stands a private company not in any way elected or representative made a film; this has nothing to do with American bombing etc, it was a private company, not the government.
- Why are you only having a go at Sony about DPRK? How about DICE for developing Battlefield where you fight and destroy the Chinese and the Russians? How about James Bond movies and books for portraying Russia as the perpetual bad guy (set during the Cold War, an era of paranoia about Russia and the East, in the same way that we now live in fear of NK?). Why not chastise the producers of Tropic Thunder for the production of an anti-Viet Kong film?
- Again, you bring up revenge. Revenge is not a feature, theme nor motif of the film, nor my any of my arguments.
We now breach the core point of your arguments, summed up in this quote, which is representative of your case:
"It's not offending North Korea that we should be concerned about though, it's what they do in reply to the offence that should be our primary worry."
Your case is patently absurd. Should we not tell the church to stop raping children to avoid stepping on toes? Were we egregiously insulting Hitler by telling him that the slaughter of millions of people and bringing the planet's resources to its knees was immoral? Should we abstain from upsetting the feelings of people like Mussolini, Stalin, bin Laden, Gaddafi?
Where we are told that we should forfeit our rights and freedoms in the face of violence, that is the time for defence, for intervention, for speaking louder and shouting longer. It is the time not to cower behind a wall of political correctness but to make the atmosphere burn the colour of resistance. Where we model robust and steadfast morality in the face of threats of intimidation and force, we must remain resolute and united. That is why the movie is important, regardless of the quality of the jokes or the specifics of the content.
You have suggested that the banning of the film is necessary to effect meaningful multi- and polylateral discussions. I say that where any such new friendship is formed on the basis of restrictions of the most basic of rights, then substantial edits need to be made to the conditions of discussion.
Cultural sensitivity is one thing. Bullying a civilian company and explicitly threatening the deaths of civilians is another. We must not allow the game to be played in this way. A movie is a movie, and this one may be seen as offensive to the NK government. That's too bad. The actions that they threaten as a result should not shunt the West into a position of kneeling prostration.
It's time for the government of the DPRK to grow up.
Best of luck at the polls.
"The North Korean government is substantially more offensive than the film portraying it."
You've missed my point completely. Just because North Korea are a troubled country does not in any way excuse the exception for the USA to allow the production of a film that depicts the assassination of their leader. Two wrongs do not make a right, especially if the 'right' isn't a remedy to the ordeals created by the entity who committed the wrongs. The film in no way aids the world in its conquest for peace and therefore doesn't deserve an existence on this planet. What gives anyone the right to produce a film with the purpose of escalating an already serious situation between two countries and generate an absurd amount of revenue while doing so? Nobody, is the correct answer.
"You go on to conflate the actions of the U.S. government and Sony as if they were in the same league. Note that Sony does not represent the American government."
Again, you've twisted my words. I never once stated that the government of the USA were in strong association with Sony, but I made it clear that the two are certainly in bed with each other. Barack Obama gave a live speech (http://bit.ly...) preaching that the film should be released and that alone shows the support of the United States government for the movie and it's inevitable effects on North Korea. The government also have absolute control over any media are released to the public and did nothing but support the publishing of the film, despite the fact that they UNDENIABLY knew that North Korea would threaten SERIOUS countermeasures against the United States and its people.
"Why are you only having a go at Sony about DPRK? How about DICE for developing Battlefield where you fight and destroy the Chinese and the Russians? How about James Bond movies and books for portraying Russia as the perpetual bad guy (set during the Cold War, an era of paranoia about Russia and the East, in the same way that we now live in fear of NK?). Why not chastise the producers of Tropic Thunder for the production of an anti-Viet Kong film?"
This is loquacious garbage . The Battlefield franchise allows the player to fight on the side of all three factions and the James Bond films are based on fictional characters and don't primarily circulate around the particular theme of destroying a REAL LIFE faction or person whereas 'The Interview' is specifically concentrated around the murder of a REAL living person in North Korea. The film is explicit in reaching out to North Korea and igniting anger among Kim Jong Un and his people and Sony and the US government were aware of this from the beginning.
"- Again, you bring up revenge. Revenge is not a feature, theme nor motif of the film, nor my any of my arguments."
This is precisely your argument. You believe that 'The Interview' should sustain its release because it fights back at North Korea for all of the horrific crimes they've committed in the past. The movie fulfills this immaculately and that's the problem, it hasn't sparked any form of positive revolution across the United States, North Korea or any other region of the world, it has just gouged a deeper cut into the bleeding body of issues between North Korea and the Western world.
"Your case is patently absurd. Should we not tell the church to stop raping children to avoid stepping on toes? Were we egregiously insulting Hitler by telling him that the slaughter of millions of people and bringing the planet's resources to its knees was immoral? Should we abstain from upsetting the feelings of people like Mussolini, Stalin, bin Laden, Gaddafi?"
Once again, you have only briefly dunked your toe into the lake of points and arguments I've made and then retracted it with a mild moan of stupidity throughout this debate. Of course we should reach out to the world for support in solving the problems in North Korea and end the tyranny of the Kim reign and its war-hungry generals, but 'The Interview' is in no way a catalyst for that. Did we make a comedy ridiculing the life of Bin Laden in order to force him to turn himself in with a bright red face of embarrassment? Did the comical cartoons illustrated in British newspapers during the 1940s lead to the surrender of the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis in the second world war? The only methods of solving a problem similar to this is either by utilising brute force or reasoning - 'The Interview' fits none of these categories of resolution and only serves to make the problem more perilious than before the film was created. We need to stop the malicious North Korean agenda, but 'The Interview' only puts the people of the United States and associated countries in danger. In fact, the making of this film is probably the most ineffective and ogreish way of solving the problem in North Korea.
"Where we are told that we should forfeit our rights and freedoms in the face of violence, that is the time for defence, for intervention, for speaking louder and shouting longer. It is the time not to cower behind a wall of political correctness but to make the atmosphere burn the colour of resistance. Where we model robust and steadfast morality in the face of threats of intimidation and force, we must remain resolute and united. That is why the movie is important, regardless of the quality of the jokes or the specifics of the content."
This a very intricately inspiring paragraph that points to no where but the fire exit of this debate. That's right, you just set your entire argument on fire with this one. You speak as if the USA have been attacked and that we need to defend ourselves, when in fact, it is the USA that have attacked North Korea by enabling the publishing of this film. The world requires a unification against North Korea's crimes, but as I've so explicitly declared throughout this debate, 'The Interview' does not solve the issues at hand, but only makes them more futile. 'The Interview' does not make us "resolute and united" and it certainly does not "burn the colour of resistance", but well done for trying out the sesquipedalian phrases, Mr. Chaplin.
"A movie is a movie, and this one may be seen as offensive to the NK government. That's too bad."
You're speaking about the movie as if it serves some vital purpose and that's it's unlucky that North Korea took offense to the film. That the offence and ridicule of North Korea was an unfortunate sacrifice that had to be made in order to fulfill the movies crucial goal. The offence of North Korea was the goal of this movie. To allow the oblivious civilians of the Western world to laugh and indulge in a movie that draws a blanket of comedy and ridicule over North Korea.
"The actions that they threaten as a result should not shunt the West into a position of kneeling prostration.
It's time for the government of the DPRK to grow up."
The film should never have even been thought up in the first place and should certainly not have reached the speculation of the media and media viewers/readers. Perhaps it's too late to ban this film because North Korea have already vowed to take serious action against the United States, but in the unlikely event that 'The Interview' is banned, it would display a lot of dexterity towards North Korea and the rest of the planet, opening up an opportunity for reunification between the USA and its enemies. North Korea and the USA both need to mature as nations on this Earth, both have created this issue as much each other but the USA have escalated the conflict between even further with the release of this film.
My brief conclusion can be found here: http://shrib.com...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year 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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Okay first off, conduct to con since pro used a link to get around the 8k post limit which is basically cheating. Other then that, pretty one sided debate. Pro's arguments were mostly a gigantic appeal to emotion where he basically argued that anything that isnt contributive to humanity and is immature should be banned, yet then tries to claim that banning the film somehow wouldnt violate the freedom of speech. Con made a good case regarding freedom of speech/expression, how a good chunk of the film actually reflects life in North Korea, and even that ridicule is a good force for driving change in a country that everyone agrees could use some. Arguments to the con, good 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.