The Instigator
LuciferWept
Pro (for)
The Contender
Ozzie
Con (against)

The Media is the Religious Institution of the Western World

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Ozzie has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 531 times Debate No: 98734
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

LuciferWept

Pro

First Round: Acceptance
Second Round: Opening Arguments
Third Round: Counter Arguments
Fourth Round: Rebuttals
Final Round: Closing Arguments

Place Sources in Comments.
Ozzie

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
LuciferWept

Pro

So, first I must define my terms. Since I did not clarify this in the first post, I am demanding that Con strictly adhere to this.

Media: All News, Entertainment, and Advertising that is Televised, Online, or in Print.

Religious Institution: Organization which espouses Moral Dogma and Doctrine. These do not need to have a deity at the center, only dogmatic doctrines.

Western World: European countries such as Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, United Kingdom, Spain, and Italy. It also includes the North American Countries of the United States and Canada.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________


The Media behaves today much in the same way that one would expect the Catholic Church to behave in the Middle Ages or Islamic clerics behave in countries like Saudi Arabia. They offer forth party propaganda and preach a moral dogma which listeners are expected to adhere to. For example, during the recent US election, many news sources lambasted every move that Trump made, going so far as the quote five words from a sentence he spoke more than a decade prior. However, there was little to no coverage of Clinton's scandals - whether it be the DNC staffer who died[1] in much the same way as other people who's names have been added to the ominous Clinton Body Count[2]. (I know that this might appear very much to be a conspiracy, but when there are ten deaths in just 2016 alone, it starts to look like something real). In addition, various stories which push a narrative (Whether that narrative be institutional racism or Feminist doctrine) are widely publicized while those stories which do not push that narrative are ignored as long as possible, such as the New Year's Eve Cologne Attacks[3], and/or dismissively discussed with plenty of apologetics, for example CNN's Don Lemon refuses to call the action of the Four kids in Chicago "evil"[4].

The purpose of this, I propose, is to lure the populace back into sheepish submission, just as they were before 1789 and before the Englightenment. This is done in two ways. The first one is by enforcing strict moral codes. In the past, under the Catholic Church, it was a command to say daily prayers and rules to control behavior in the bedroom[5], today it is speech codes and (surprise!) trying to control behavior in the bedroom[6]. The other is the obvious one, which is propaganda, and has already been discussed.

Sorry I'm so brief with this, it's late and I've been very busy lately.
Ozzie

Con

First of all, the affirmative and I have agreed to change our definition of a religious institution to "having an organized collection of belief systems or cultural systems" and "the visible manifestation and authority of a specific religion".
My opponent has mentioned a wide range of conspiracy theories which lead him to define 'The Media' as a religious institution. First I will demonstrate how much fact is really behind the theories, then I will argue his comparison of The Media and religion as fundamentally flawed.

"during the recent US election, many news sources lambasted every move that Trump made, going so far as the quote five words from a sentence he spoke more than a decade prior." There is reason for this. Trump made plenty of questionable 'moves' during the American presidential election campaign and throughout his life. The five word sentence you referenced (I assume you mean the Billy Bush hot mic incident) as well as the rest of the tape is unheard of for a presidental candidate and would naturally cause an uproar. News broadcasters are meant to broadcast interesting or significant events, and this certainly was one. Showing it from one perspective was inevitable and The Media naturally, for PR purposes if not out of moral decency, didn't side with a man who made such a disgusting and ungentlemanly remark, especially someone who, as a presidential candidate, would be expectedl to conform to high standards. That remark was newsworthy, whether you like it or not. (1) Also, opportunities to criticise Hillary Clinton are few and far between given she's a professional and competent political operative that's careful about her appearance in the media. Despite this, all the way over in Australia we never heard the end of her email scandal, the DNC leak, and probably Benghazi when it happened. The suggestion Trump is being unfairly scrutinised by the media is wrong.


Another frankly ridiculous conspiracy theory my opponent has brought up is the 'Clinton body count', and the media's reluctance to report on the murder of a man who happened to be a low-level staffer at the DNC. In doing this he contradicted himself by citing a source (in the comments) consistent with our definition of 'the media' that did report on the murder. The truth is, people get murdered all the time I'm a country where anyone can buy a gun. I won't even enter into the ridiculous suggestion Mrs Clinton has had people murdered, there is no official or credible evidence she did anything of the sort. The website the affirmative cites offers a range of increasingly ludicrous conspiracy theories and offers me a free Dell computer on every second link I click. My phone won't even open the other cited link for some scary computery reason.
Pro has also suggested the media consistently pushes for feminism and political correctness for some suspicious reason. The media has to be politically correct, otherwise they get sued (2). Every outlet has a bias, but not all biases are the same. In America, for example (as far as I know) Fox News has a right wing bias while CNN is seen as leaning further to the left. Biases are natural, and, as long as a wide range of opinions are available, shouldn't be criticised. While Trump-supporting Americans are crapping on about how the media is all left-wing conspiracy, they source their news from MEDIA sources like Breitbart and (heaven forbid) Tomi Lahren. If people aren't happy with the views of the mainstream media they should accept they are out of the mainstream, or be the change they want to see and work to change the minds ignoring the mainstream.
As I see things, the media is not one consensual 'religious institution', but a wide variety of sources that offer a wide variety of different opinions. Saying The Media is one religious institution is like saying Christianity and The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are one religion, which they most certainly are not. The obvious difference between the media and a religious institution is that the latter offers one consistent set of rules, values and dogma, but the media is diverse, doesn't 'preach' any principals and is often self contradictory, if you can even see it as one body (which it most certainly isn't).

Hopefully in the next rounds we can get a bit more factual and in-depth, I went up to 5 minutes within the end of the deadline so sorry my argument isn't very thorough. Thanks to the opponent for an interesting topic and his help in the comments (as you can probably see I'm new to debating).
Debate Round No. 2
LuciferWept

Pro

So for those who are too lazy to go to the comments and read the negotiations between myself and Con, he has proposed another definition to replace my original definiton of Religious Institution. I cede that his definition is superior.


On with the Show
______________________________________________________________________________________________


The current state of the media promotes what are called Secular Religions[1], which is a term granted to a set of doctrines and dogmas that are virtually religious, simply without a supernatural or metaphysical aspect.

Now I can understand the misunderstanding that this was going to be about conspiracies, however, I only posted the Clinton Kill Count Conspiracy as an example (albeit an extreme one) which the media would not cover. A more fitting example would have been the content of the emails exposed on Wikileaks.

However, the debate here is not whether the media tried to help one or the other candidate, but if the media is a religious institution. And since I have taken the side of saying it is, I shall now continue to attempt to prove so.

The religious institution, by defintion, has "an organized collection of belief systems and cultural systems". This is true. I am not trying to accuse the Media of being malevolent or involved in some greater conspiracy that has yet to be revealed. However, the first question which must be asked is 'why do religious institutions like Christianity and Islam and others promote some of the mistruths that they promote?" Solely picking on Christianity because I am most familiar with it, I shall first describe the fact the Roman Catholic Church spread the lie that condoms increase the liklihood of contracting the AIDS virus, and second point to some of the "Young Eath Creationists" who claim that man and dinosaurs existed together.[2][3] It cannot be quickly assumed that these organizations mentioned and others are acting malevontly, for I am sure if you talk to some "Young Earther" about him/herself, you would find a generous and compassionate individual. However, they spread these lies because they either believe the lie to be true, or if they are acquainted with the truth, they believe that they are lying for the Greater Good.

So it is with the Media. Outlets like CNN did not fragrantly abandon all bias in favor of Hillary Clinton because they wanted war with Russia or some other theory that I could be accused of holding, but because they truly believed her to be the best choice. In their belief, they abandoned objectivity and did not discuss content exposed on Wikileaks but spent weeks on Donald Trump's "five word sentence" that DDO won't let me repeat here. To give another example, in my opening argument I mentioned Don Lemon refusing to brand the kids as evil. One can watch it and see Mr. Lemon trying to blame bad upbringing, or, in his words, "poor home training", for the behavior. Unlike other outlets like Fox and Breitbart (who I will get to very shortly), I will credit Mr. Lemon and assume that if the races were reversed, his reaction would have been the same. His premise however, is fundamentally flawed because he assumes that nobody would conceive of this. Yet history is rife with names like Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, Carl Eugene Watts, or even bigger offenders like Dr. Josef Mengele, General Shiro Ishii, and Klaus Barbie. So obviously, there are individuals quite capable of conceiving of such things. [4] I contend that Mr. Lemon is quite aware of this, and instead of calling them evil, found that perpetuating a mistruth was a way to discuss an issue he felt needed to be discussed. In doing so, he did the same a Catholic priest who dismisses evil not as an act of humanity, but as the actions of the Devil. Only he blamed a Secular reason instead of a supernatural one. He perpetuated the tenants of his own Secular Religion, which is Progressivism.

I go quite hard on Progressvies (because it's so much fun) but you, Con, mention Fox News, Breitbart, and Tomi Lahren. You claim they have a right wing bias as opposed to CNN's left wing bias. I contend that neither side has a bias, but that will be a little further down. For now, let us consider the second Secular Religon, Conservativism. Much like Progressive outlets who hammer on one clause of one sentence Trump said ten years ago, groups like Breitbart are also known to take a fragmented soundbite and publish it as newsworthy. Much like their rivals, they are knowingly perpetuating mistruths in order to advance their dogmas. Comically, both sides, when confronted with facts cannot even bring themselves to accept those facts. For example, on Fox News a few years back, staple commentator Bill O'Reilly debated Tina Nguyen about Asian success as opposed to Blacks. Ms. Nguyen explained to Mr. O'Reilly that he was wrong, and he continually rejected her assertions because it contradicted his dogmatic views (in this case, that gangsta rap harms black communities). [5] His reaction was not unlike when a Creationist is confronted with evidence of evolution: denial.

If this was only bias, which I concede is unavoidable, there could be productive debate and discussion on the topic. However, because they hold their opinions to be infallible dogma, conversation is almost impossible between media figures, as that neither one will actually discuss the events openly and in good faith. Instead, they only discuss things from the point of their dogma. You mention Tomi Lahren, and reminded me of the debate between her and Trevor Noah on The Daily Show. [6] This gives evidence to my point. Rather than have a constructive debate, Mr. Noah came from the Progressive Secular Religion, and Ms. Lahren from the Conservative Secular Religion. The topic was about the cases of shootings of black males by police officers in the United States. Of course they discuss statistics, but neither one really tries to discuss on a case by case basis. If this had happened, Mr. Noah would have to view the tapes of Michael Brown robbing a store and Alton Sterling's lenghty criminal record. Likewise, Ms. Lahren would have to acknowledge that Philando Castile was cooperating with police officers and was shot for possessing a firearm (a right granted to American citizens) and that Eric Garner was doing little more than selling cigarrettes for less than the State mandated by tax, and did not need to be choked to death by numerous officers - and the fact that his crime was reminiscent of a certain anti-tax protest on board a boat in the Boston Harbor during the 18th Century. Instead, they just cling to their dogmatic narratives and accomplish nothing.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Con, due to circumstances I will not be able to reply to your next argument until the 13th of January. I apologize in advance for the delay.


This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LuciferWept 1 year ago
LuciferWept
So you missed the deadline and came up with a new reason. My point was that people will not challenge their own opinions because they hold their opinions to be not just correct, but the righteous view.
Posted by Ozzie 1 year ago
Ozzie
I forfeit because Pro's new stance changes the whole debate. Of course everyone has an opinion or bias, and I don't know how to rebut the assertion that divulging a set of opinions means you're a religious institution. Maybe it does. Plus, I missed the deadline. Oops.
Posted by LuciferWept 1 year ago
LuciferWept
Ozzie...of course! I should have included Australia in my definition of Western institutions. This is as much your debate as it is mine. You don't need to seek permission for what you say.

Canis...that's the point of debate. Ozzie's superior definition of religion and my next argument will explain that.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
The media is the "media" and nothing else--- But why religious ?
Posted by Ozzie 1 year ago
Ozzie
In my argument I have made references to the Australian media (the only 'media' I've really experienced. Australia is indisputably part of the Western World so I'm sure this is ok
Posted by LuciferWept 1 year ago
LuciferWept
Oh, the Furthermore you provide. I like that. Be sure to include it in your argument please as the replacement definition.
Posted by LuciferWept 1 year ago
LuciferWept
Well, for the definition, I'll agree to the first sentence. The second sentence is not necessarily true. For example, the Church of Scientology is recognized as a Religious Institution, but they are not organized and operated exclusively for religious and charitable purposes. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

As for conspiracy theories, I merely mentioned the Clinton body count as something the media was not willing to cover whilst concentrated on a fragment of a sentence said by Trump. I don't intend to make this about Conspiracies.....
Posted by Ozzie 1 year ago
Ozzie
I won't accept your definition of a religious institution. It was designed to aid your case, not to provide clarity. I propose this definition: "To qualify as a religious institution you must have an organized collection of belief systems or cultural systems. It must be organized and operated exclusively for religious and charitable purposes. " Furthermore, "a religous institution is the visible manifestation and authority of a specific religion". Please get back to me on this before deadline runs out. Also, I don't want this debate to be a conspiracy theory-fest, we need actual, proven facts.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.