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

The Media's role vs The People Around You in the Development of Personality (continued)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2014 Category: TV
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,135 times Debate No: 44309
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




This is a continued debate which started here.

Although this is a contentious debate, The Debate has moved into a matter between the debaters. Voter's should take into consideration each continuation separately. Please vote and comment on any considerations you have.

An Opinion section has been started on this issue and is linked back to the first debate.

As this is a follow on debate, any information from the previous round may be included in this Debate, but should not be used by voters to determine the outcome of this debate. Some predetermined points of this debate can be found in the Comment section of this debate.

Because Brepar ended the last debate, and there is some precursor to this debate, Brepar's first round will be for stating the predetermined points which cannot be presented until this debate is created.


and so it continues, should be fun.

By predetermined points I'm going to presume that you mean arguments that we are carrying forward.
They are as such.

Rebuttals for mass media hypnosis arguments

1)How somebody acts under hypnosis is dependant on why they were hypnotised, as we have agreed that a person cannot be hypnotised against their will. They are fully capable of disagreeing with something they are told whilst under hypnosis so this cannot be used to brainwash, just getting that out of the way, I doubt that PRO will wish to contest this point.

2) I can agree that peers tend to be full of fallacies, it doesn't take a genius to realise that so too is mass media. mass media is written and presented by people, who will hold the same fallacies as the people around you. In addition, you will often hang out with people with similar beliefs and interests to you. therefore similar fallacies to you, and as a result the existence of these fallacies will not result in you disregarding the beliefs of your peers.

Arguments about the incorrectness of peers' beliefs are therefore void unless you can provide evidence that the subject would use these fallacies to lose belief in his peers without losing belief in mass media, which are subject to the same fallacies.

Rebuttals for interpersonal relationship arguments (summary)

1) Peers have a greater effect on your personality in adolescence than your parents. Agreed, but this offers nothing against my side of the debate.

2) People are influenced media, but if the influence goes against their beliefs and tries to change their personality a person is more likely to change the channel than their opinion

Learning styles are as (if not more) important as (than) attention paid when considering how well a person adapts to information they receive, specifically, an interpersonal learner will both pay more attention to their peers than a television and will be more believing of they things they hear from them. Intrapersonal learners tend to follow the ideas given to them by respectable figures of authority, i.e. teachers, and be sceptical of all else including the information gotten through media. Though I accept that intrapersonal learners are more likely to be influenced by interpersonal learners by media, I argue that the people around them would still have a greater effect in this case.

People with similar points of views find it easy to become friends and stimulate growth in one another's personalities.

purely comparative arguments

1) I have copied all of this in as I don't wish to summarise it for risk of losing my analogy

I would argue that you do not know why the children wished to go to McDonald's but to think of it this way. If the commercial to your children to go to there but all of their friends told them repeatedly that it was nasty and unfilling, would they still want to go? or would they just agree with their friends to better fit in with the people around them.

People are naturally social, this is shown repeatedly by the way groups of people will stand as one out of the way, almost as one entity, but very few will step forward and stand for what they believe in alone. in fact these people are so rare that they become famous for their efforts in many cases, I ask how many people were willing to sit back and accept apartheid until a small group of people stood up for their equality.

It is a shameful fact of humanity that we will sit back and allow wrong things to happen but i argue that a man on TV telling you that it's wrong will be no match for your friends and family telling you to do something about it, as long as they are also willing to act.
Debate Round No. 1


Rebuttals for mass media arguments (readdressed)

(1)The ultimate deciding factor in changing a person’s personality is the person’s acceptance of the information presented. I think that we both agreed to that in the previous debate. Hypnotized or not hypnotized is no longer an issue.

(2) Although both the media and peers contain fallacies, the media is represents a higher authority and is thereby less subject to scrutiny than peers, which gives the media an edge in its ability to be believed.

Despite their respective fallacies, a person is more likely to continue to give the benefit of doubt to the media for future statements then they are of friends who consistently provide unreliable information. Diminishing the fact that the media often provides unreliable information, people generally believe the information to be a mistake, whereat people who provide unreliable information are considered to be unreliable. The media still holds its reliability and friends do not. On this factor, Media holds the decisive edge in personality influence.

Rebuttals for interpersonal relationship arguments (readressed)

(1)Peers still do not outweigh the influence of mass media.

(2)I honestly think this idea of changing the channel breaks the rule of unfairness presented in our last debate. However, because changing the channel only occurs ‘if the influence goes against their beliefs,’ it should be automatically assumed that agreement that all of the ideas presented during a media experience are agreed to at the moment a person begins participating. Ideas that are presented are assumed to be agreed with by the individual unless the person rejects all parts of the media influence. So not watching TV, or changing a channel is not a plausible argument considering that it negates the possibility for influence. I wouldn’t dare say stop having friends, or stop going to work because people might say something you don’t agree with and you will be influenced by their comments.

A person’s change in personality comes from within themselves despite what outside influences they may, or may not have. Yet we have come to the conclusion that media is presented with assumed agreement, where as peers are presented with presumed contention. This also gives Media the decisive edge in influence.

Purely comparative arguments

I think you have conceded the McDonald’s issue. Despite my protests, and purpose to influence them away from such atrocities, I failed. Peer influence failed and Media influence won.

‘But very few will step forward and stand for what they believe in alone.’ Very few people will step forward if they believe that what believe is outside of social norms. Media represents the higher authority and therefore people are subject more to the social norms presented in the media than they are of their small group of friends.

‘It is a shameful fact of humanity that we will sit back and allow wrong things to happen but i argue that a man on TV telling you that it's wrong will be no match for your friends and family telling you to do something about it, as long as they are also willing to act.’

There is a keen caveat to your statement here that affects every part of your argument that would give peer relationships a greater influence over media. Media is already in action and portraying the method of being in action where peers are subject to their willingness to take action. Because you caveat your statement with this premise, I assume that you also believe that peers are less likely to take actually take action and that a person will not take action based on their beliefs unless they have outside support. The media is an excellent place to get that support when your friends won’t. Your caveat proves that the media has the decisive edge in this matter also.

To further prove The superiority of Media.

In our last debate we talked about the effects of the Generation Gap being greater due to the affective influence of media. I believe there is no greater topic to prove this point than religion. Because the majority of the American population is Christian, it would be impossible for anyone to be anything other than Christian if peers were the primary influence. It would just automatically be assumed that if a person is a Christian, all of their peers would be Christian too. But it is not automatically assumed that peers are in agreement with each other. It is assumed that they are contentious with one another. Because it would be natural that any minority opinions would be rejected by a peer group, the individual would necessarily need an outlet to bring together like minded ideas. These minority ideas have gained considerable ground throughout history by way of media. The forms of this media have been public events, television, radio, newspaper, (now) the internet, etc. Some of the subjects that could have never taken off if we remained subject to peer influence include affirmative action, the women’s movement, hatred toward communism, et al, and now the influence of homosexuality. That’s it, there I said it, the approval of homosexuality is being generated primarily by the most powerful influencing source, the media.

Not more than 15 years ago, homosexuality was considered an abomination to humanity. It had to be hidden by the people who considered themselves to be gay. There was a big ‘coming out of the closet’ movement portrayed by the media and now homosexuality is all but completely accepted. Homosexuals have been around for a long time, but never has it been so shouted from the rooftops as it now. What is that rooftop, you ask? The media! I can tell all my friends don’t be gay, thousands of others can still hold the value that homosexuality is wrong. But the truth is that a small group can use the media to claim an injustice that results in a nationwide protest of a company just because the owner has a different viewpoint than they do. The people who are homosexual in America is still a minority to its overall population, yet gay marriage is HUGE social issue. Have the individuals who disagree with the fact made it so renowned, or the homosexuals who remained in the closet for centuries? No, the media has. But let’s look at how that happens.

I don’t watch Ellen Degenerous, I think the show is lame. I don’t watch a lot of random interview shows otherwise either. I’ll check out one every now and then, if there’s a particular actor, or topic that I’m interested in knowing more about. We all know that Ellen is gay; that’s why I picked her. But the understood concept is that in order to watch a show, you must agree with all of the premises of the show or turn it off. Knowing that Ellen is gay when you watch the show, is an agreement to be influenced by the ideas of a homosexual. Now, if anyone is offended by me naming a TV show, (put it in the comments if you are) it is because they have put great stock in the ideas portrayed by that show because the media has such a powerful influence over their pesonality.

Another idea, generally unchallenged by its listeners is one from Laura Ingraham, a conservative radio host who continuously screams, “Power to the people.” She even wrote a book with the same title. If she were truly a conservative wouldn’t she use the more constitutionally correct term “Power from the people?” I understand, it’s just one small word, but it changes the meaning significantly. This is a way that the media is changing the way we think about our culture. Can you imagine America becoming nation where the government imparts its power to the people, rather than remaining a country where it derives its power from the people? Thousands of her so called ‘conservative’ listeners are having this complex idea inserted into their personal beliefs without them even realizing. Doesn’t that make you wonder how many of our beliefs, which affects our personality, came from the media and not from the people around us?



I have used caps here to place emphasis on certain parts of the arguments, they do not exist to offend or confront. I may carry this across to further rounds where the same idea applies

Rebuttals for mass media arguments

1) So you concede that hypnosis through mass media would be ineffectual. I agree that what dictates a person's belief in information is in how acceptant they are of information but I would like to push that this in no way negates copying the actions of the people around you as this is also a method of information intake, and one which a child is far less likely to disagree with, actions speak louder than words. So I shall also introduce this aspect into the argument here:
-doing as your parents and peers do will come far more naturally to you than distancing yourself from these people.
-seeing someone do something right in front of you will have a greater effect on your personality than seeing somebody to which you cannot directly relate doing the same thing through a piece of media.

2) evidence please, whilst I understand that evidence will exist I cannot argue against a statement without being able to see the foundations.
Many things that people provide in fallacies are of opinion, if a friend advertises a good game to me and I see an advert for a different one I know I'd be far more likely to pick the one my friend recommended as they have a greater understanding of me as a person rather than as a target audience so, in turn, I am sure that any fallacies that they may have about the game are not likely to be ones that will ruin the experience for me.
The same applies to other topics and other people, unless you have a large degree of mistrust for your peers you can trust that the fallacies they portray will not have a negative affect on your life and you will allow these fallacies to influence your personality.

rebuttals for interpersonal relationship arguments

1) statement, no evidence. if the answer were that clear we wouldn't be debating.

2) I do not see how this breaks the rules of unfairness, the world is not a controlled experiment and you cannot force people to be undergo large influence through the media. the fact is that you DO have the choice to change channel or turn off the TV. If you turn on to a channel and you don't like what's on then you change channel. If something challenges your core beliefs you will dislike it, if something only has minor challenges to your beliefs then it can only have a minor influence.
A large part of any debate lies not only in strengthening your own arguments, but in pointing out the weaknesses of your opponent's. this is a large weakness towards the effect of media and I would appreciate it if you would not attempt to hide it behind the rules.
As it goes, it would only be against the rules if I were to say something along the lines of: parents think that the child is watching too much TV and the people around the subject remove the influence of media. by my interpretation at least, since this is a self subjected and fairly common act it cannot be discounted.

People can, and do, remove all influence of their peers. but this only occurs in extreme cases and often due to large trauma/ bad parenting. therefore it is quite a rare phenomena and actually does go against the earlier guidelines we set out before beginning this debate, please do not compare the 2 arguments the likelihood of occurrence is vastly different. Like me arguing that an Amish child could never be influence by media until they're outside of the target age set in debate 1.

Purely comparative arguments.

1) untrue, media AND peer influence won. Had their peers told them that the food was bad and that they shouldn't eat it the result would likely have been much different as they would have agreed with their peers so that they could better fit in.

"The media is an excellent place to get that support when your friends won"t."
Just to dissect this sentence and send it back at you. IF the people around you were to refuse to influence you then the media would have the overwhelming effect. but if the media tells you that you deserve something then your family and friends tell you not to act, you would find yourself in the minority when following the media. The media gives support to beliefs but without further backing and the right foundations you will not be prepared to build on the ideas that the media give you.

further superiority of the media... just no.

"would just automatically be assumed that if a person is a Christian, all of their peers would be Christian too"
Incorrect, if I were at any point to argue that you are friends only with people who's beliefs are EXACTLY the same as yours then I would be negating their ability to influence you at all. all that is required are one or two points on which you can agree and the disagreements will then be worked out between you, thereby affecting your beliefs.
for example, an atheist gamer could very well be friends with a Christian one.
my standpoint on this is as such: If you have nothing in common with someone, you will be unable to connect and will not be friends. If you have everything in common with someone the need to communicate with them is removed and you wouldn't be able to form an effective friendship until your personality had been influenced enough to have at least some disagreements. In this impossible case, completely refuting the idea of individuality, media would have complete control over your personality development. I am yet to hear of two people with absolutely no contrasting views however.

"Some of the subjects that could have never taken off if we remained subject to peer influence include affirmative action, the women"s movement, hatred toward communism, et al, and now the influence of homosexuality. That"s it, there I said it, the approval of homosexuality is being generated primarily by the most powerful influencing source, the media."

all of the above, with the possible exclusion of homosexuality, started with groups of peers meeting and finding other people with similar beliefs to surround themselves with. This would be a peer influence.
In fact, had it not been for groups of homosexuals standing up for themselves do you honestly believe that the media would have convinced people to be acceptant. do you think that the media would have the stories that it needs to push for acceptance if people did not first find peer groups within which one of them influenced the others to go public with their experiences?

"Knowing that Ellen is gay when you watch the show, is an agreement to be influenced by the ideas of a homosexual. "

most are acceptant of homosexuality, the fact that you think it is strange " to be influenced by the ideas of a homosexual" is odd in itself. she is a person, influencing other people. there is nothing else to it, I argue that anything that happens around you will influence you and that people who watch her show, and the media in general WILL be influenced, the arguments that I offer only oppose the idea that the media>peer influence or parental influence.

"If she were truly a conservative wouldn't she use the more constitutionally correct term"

this really makes no difference to the debate, who cares if she wishes to surround herself with hypocrisy, it's her life after all.

"Can you imagine America becoming nation where the government imparts its power to the people"

That's kind of the whole point of voting, so you can get the power used how you want it to be used.

"rather than remaining a country where it derives its power from the people?"

Where else is it supposed to get it's power from?

Thousands of her so called "conservative" listeners are having ... which affects our personality, came from the media and not from the people around us?

finally an argument relative to the debate. How many people listen to this and try to seize control of their country? an EXTREME minority act on her words.
Debate Round No. 2


Anything your Peers can do, the media can do better.
(1) I do not concede that hypnosis is ineffectual. Accessing theta and alpha mind frames can be accomplished through repetition, prayer, and meditation which are self-imposed. And peers can cause hypnosis also, which should only be done in a controlled environment.

-Copying the actions of what you see is not limited to peers. It"s limited to what you agree with. But let"s be honest, who are the true role models in society? Super action Power Rangers and party all the time Miley Cyrus, or stay at home mom who never cleans the house and grumpy working all the time dad?
-We are distancing ourselves from our Parents from the time we are born, first by walking and then by moving out of the house. We have boundaries with other people. We guard ourselves from outside influence. The problem is when we are unguarded from influence. And I am saying the people let their guard down when they receive media influence.

-I think you missed the part that people are relating to the people they see on TV. The watchers have empathy for the characters both happiness when something exciting happens, and sorrow when something grievous happens like a death [1] [2].
(1a). There is known confusion with how we see actors in comparison to their television personas.
This confusion may also come from our "alief" system. The philosopher Tamar Gendler proposes that we have two cognitive systems at work when we engage in fiction: "belief", where we know the fiction to be false, and "alief", where there is an unconscious process that causes us to believe TV actors are doctors, or to have emotional reactions to fictional characters breaking up in a book.[1]
[Jenny Rodgers] cites research by Barbara F. Tobolowsky, who found that students are arriving at college thinking that their professors will echo those who they see on screen. Faculty are seen as unfriendly and not helpful, because that"s what students have seen on the screen. This causes problems when students are unwilling to seek help from their professors, thinking them unapproachable. [1]

People are confusing fact with fiction when they are watching television shows that portray real life events. But the problem is not whether we see the actors as real, it"s whether or not we see the dilemmas as real. And we do see the dilemma as part of our lives. James Bowmen relates this problem to Breaking Bad from the point of the Aristotle Mimetic Principle (mimeses) [2]. I really think this article is his own recognition to reject the information he received from the show by way of Baruch Spinoza"s (explained in the last debate) philosephy that we believe everything until we disbelieve it. Because Plato first created the mimeses theory, I will give a short brief of it and allow you to also look it up in the link [3].

Both Plato and Aristotle believed that Life Imitates Art and vice versa. Plato believed that it had no realistic value and Aristotle believed that it had the ability to teach despite its fictional nature. I side with Aristotle

(2) First let's look at the media lies [4]. Next the Reason why we trust it so much. I don"t know why we trust the media so much. I just know that we do, and there are more people saying that we shouldn"t trust it than coming to a conclusion of why we do trust it. My opinion of why this trust happens is that the media represents authority and knowledge that we wouldn"t be able to receive from any other source within or circles of influence. I have to turn back to Descartes and to Spinoza that we believe everything until we consciously disbelieve it.

But seriously why do we believe the media over peers? Perhaps because the media is a collective agent of knowledge. I know one fact. You asked me for evidence, which means that you aren"t just going to take my word for it. What evidence can I give you except through the Media which holds superiority above and beyond that of people around you? Am I one of the people around you? Regardless of what method we communicate, do our influences to each other bring us into the category of the people around us? I say it does.
1. Denial of evidence given is not lack of evidence. I have covered Belief of Authority of Television, Trust placed in Television, Manipulation used by Television, Acceptance of Knowledge received from Television. In all of these areas, Television and other media have higher levels of influence than that of peers. You have not proven that any of your causes outweigh the total influence of media, except in some minority cases. I"m glad that your friend told you to play a game that he likes, but why did your friend play a game at all? If you said media influence, you are right!

2. Influences are influences regardless of how big or small they are. Matter of fact, people believe there is greater power is planting a small seed of influence rather than whacking someone over the head with a whole tree. I always like to say "Self-Discovery is the epitome of learning." Jesus used these idea in his parables. Aesop used this idea, Dr. Seuss used this idea and thousands of others are using a small amount of influence to make big changes in people. If you will notice in the following link, it says that this method of influence is evil and manipulating, so you shouldn"t do it to your peers. However, it gives clear example of how the media is using this technique to influence its audience. [5]

Purely comparative arguments
1) Dropped on basis of equality.
2) The media represents a higher culture and it does count as your backing. Media is the highest form of our culture [6] and we associate the media with a sort of mass culture where our sub culture opinions are not the overall opinions of the nation. You don"t find yourself in the minority, you find yourself siding with authority, and are able to separate yourself from the people around you (see previous arguments concerning distancing.)

Further superiority of the Media

I"m glad that you aren't exactly like your friends. If you were, I wouldn"t even consider debating this topic with you. If your friends aren't accomplishing their goal of influencing you to be more like them, your friends are weak in comparison to media. The Media is influencing you to be more like the characters they portray at a faster, identifiable rate with a defined agenda of what you should be like, who you should accept and what you should think about the people who don"t agree with you.
Reiterating my point, including homosexuality, minority groups would have remained a small insignificant portion of society without media backing.
About Ellen- She is a person influencing others to be like her and she is doing it through the media and creating a positive stereotype of homosexuals, where there one was a negative one. Local homosexuals don't have the same power that she has because she is the Media. About Laura Ingram, I think she is advocating for a Communist country


Anything the media can do your peers can do better

1) I disagree with this idea of people copying the actions of the media over that of their parents/peers. A news reader preaching peace whilst your brother whacks you over the head is fighting a losing battle, a parent walking in and telling you to stop will be much more effective method.

walking isn't distancing yourself from your parents, it's an attempt to copy their actions. Imitation is a highly important stage in a child's personality development. Moving out of the house will often occur upon a child moving to college, at which point they are outside of the age we agreed in which personality develops the most, if you wish to expand the age range however you may but in this time a person will be extremely guarded to all influences, media and interpersonal.

guarding from influence increases as you begin to disagree with the views around you, if you wish to push a major argument towards the lack of guarding against an influence then I wish to point out that a child in early development will have no guard and will be almost entirely influenced by their parents. as a child ages they become more guarded to all sources as acceptance by society becomes increasingly important to them.

notice how the reluctance to act on an influence is increased with age and introduce the fact that media is only subjected to us after the development of out ego/super ego is well under way and I reiterate the importance of personality development through our parenting.

-> has never become emotional over fictional happenings, but I'll trust in your research for now.
So you argue that our ability to empathise with a dilemma through media is greater than our ability to relate with reality?
because the students may come into the college believing the tutors to be unhelpful but reality will eventually win out, how many of them do you think leave thinking the same thing without the backing of reality to agree with the view of the media.

reality is more believable than media, peers represent reality.

life imitates art, art imitates life, therefore life imitates itself through art. people will always believe what is their reality and media is only another conduit of information, this proves that it has an influence but offers no strength to that influence.

also a believe the last paragraph of this article fits my argument against media perfectly, it's amusing to wonder what we would do in these situations but we are more than aware that it is not true.
"What we learn is only what we learn --... imagine that they might co-exist"

the last sentence of this goes quite in my favour as well
"He examines poetry as a piece of art and not as a book of preaching or teaching." as such this medium, and many others by the same idea, are disconnected from reality and therefore fail to become more than amusing past times. this discounts almost all varieties of non-factual media, significantly reducing the effect of your empathy to fictional media argument.

so it would be fair to say that the media should not be trusted because they hide the truth?
In turn would we not undergo continuous disbelief upon realising this fact?

I am being influenced by you, a peer, through media. this negates as it has passed through both sides of the argument. media gave me the ability to be influenced, but it is a peer who is influencing me.

1) I offer less arguments for my side but I would not call this these minority cases as each time I have directly compared media and peer influence and given cause as to why the peer influence/parental influence is greater. BOP has been more than met, I doubt this would have come to a second debate if you doubted that I could offer good arguments in return to your own.

agreed, media influence convinced him that the game would be good. but I argue that this would only occur in the case where media is the only influence, had his peer group told him the game was over-rated I sincerely doubt he would have bought it.

2) And your parents plant the first and most nurtured seed of influence, this offers proof towards my side of the debate.

In addition, how many people do you think intentionally influence their friends. about 50/50 right? so those that are trying to influence you to do what they want get ignored, but what about the other half?
the other half are comfortable with you how you are, this inspires confidence that they are nice people and you act to become more like them, seed of influence planted.

Purely comparative arguments
1) actually 2) but 1) was dropped.
You have quoted someone's opinion as truth, "The media represents a higher culture" , a little careless. but even if I sidestep this action the fact that media is considered to be a higher culture could only act to further distance it from the people that it tries to influence, making it more abstract; making people feel less capable of emulating the behaviour it encourages and therefore acting to lessen it's influence.

Further insuperiority of the media

The lack of complete influence is not the lack of strong influence. I am influenced to be like my friends BECAUSE we are different, in much the same way that I influence them, the subtle differences between people are the easiest to overcome and therefore it is easy to be influenced to change these small things. this may seem like an argument in your favour but I ask you to imagine the insignificant size of an atom, and remember that they make over 1/6 of our universe. if something so small that we cannot see it can create a body of unimaginable proportions then small changes we make to ourselves to better fit in with our peers can change our personalities immensely.
Minority groups are small insignificant portions of society, that's what the word "minority" says. less that 10% of all people are gay, and their acceptance would never have been pushed for by the media had they not gotten together and somebody influenced the others around them to take up a stand against their discrimination. peer influence was neccesary for media influence but media influence was not neccesary for influence to occur therefore it stands, that in this case also, peer influence was more important.

"Local homosexuals don't have the same power that she has because she is the Media"
the message reaches more people with the media so would be seen to have a greater affect, but in the development of a single subject peer influence would be greater. An adopted child raised by gay parents would think nothing of media telling him that homosexuality was wrong, the same child raised by homophobic parents wouldn't care about the media telling him/her that she/he should accept homosexuality.
Debate Round No. 3


A news reader preaching peace whilst your brother whacks you over the head is fighting a losing battle.

As promised in our private chat, I concede this debate. This may be because I was specifically looking for this evidence from your side, or because you made an adequate and justifiable claim that peers have a greater power of influence.

Although I believe you are indirectly making this claim, I acknowledge that the claim was made and I cannot refute it.

Fear of Reprisal is powerful and limited solely to peer, and parent relationships. The media cannot hit you over the head for disagreeing with their perspectives. Your brother can hit you.

I came to this conclusion after the first round of this debate while I was considering war propeganda. The media is unpunishable for its misdeeds, and misinterpretation of information, and poor representation of morality. The only fear a person may have of reenacting media representations is is that of reprisal by society and peers.

If you see someone kill on a screen, you don't do it because you will go to jail. However, if you see 16 year olds singing and dancing, you may want to join a glee club yourself, or join the military where certain taught behaviors are acceptable.

Anyways, all other points are mute in comparrison, even though I have provided clear evidence and could provide more evidence to prove that the media is superior in its influencing capabilities on all other counts.


It has been an interesting debate and I shall miss it dearly.

Should you wish it I will standby the message I sent and hope to debate you again soon. Anything but religious debates will be accepted.

(Shortest round of these debates since it began)
Debate Round No. 4


I don't think I've ever writtten a three page essay so easily before.
I'm sure we'll debate again soon. send to voting.


this way to voting :)

you study psychology? or do you just mean essay size in general?
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.