The Instigator
David12N
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Imreadyforit
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The government should not fund the PBS/Big Bird

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: 4/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 499 times Debate No: 73612
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

David12N

Pro

I will try and argue that the US should not fund for the most part the Public Broadcasting Service {PBS} because there are far more important areas the government could be funding more like health. Yes it is a relatively small amount compared to many other expenditures but it is still a lot of money in real terms annually. The television station could be privatized. The only part of PBS I believe the government should fund are the news programs because of the importance {and expense} of the news and funding rural PBS stations because the commercial viability is more in doubt there compared to bigger markets.
Imreadyforit

Con

I accept your challenge, please pardon my lack of knowledge on the debate format and be patient with me on what I might do to or say. Thank you

1. With the funding of the PBS station they are providing the public with knowledge, using this channel has allowed for the government to insure a strong organization that has been running for a long time to benefit the older and younger generations. Lets say Sesame Street, using this television show for the children provide kids who are not at school to develop their brains and help them grow intellectually. The government is trying to allow a trusted program to insure that our children of the future understand better and comprehend well on what they are learning about, by shaping our future they trust that they will make the better decisions and help our country generations ahead of us.

2. This is also applied with adults too, Using TV shows that capture the attention of the watcher and adding facts help the ones working today to be provided with more than they had learned in school. Say someone didn't understand cancer and the risks and problems that occur emotionally and physically, using these television shows has insured that when these people must face challenges like this that occur they will be prepared.

good luck, cant wait for round two.
Debate Round No. 1
David12N

Pro

Hello,
Thanks for accepting the challenge. I don't know that much about the "correct" debate format either so don't worry about it.

I would argue that Sesame Street could and would exist without government support. Government money only makes up a fraction of Sesame Street's income. It was less than 10 million out of the more than 100 million it generates from merchandise sales etc. I agree with you that television shows can educate people. The fact that shows can educate people does not mean the government has to pay for those shows. There are shows that educate people on commercial networks. They are for profit channels that provide shows and documentaries. So the government does not have to fund television because the private sector can do it.
Imreadyforit

Con

Imreadyforit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
David12N

Pro

There is nothing for me to respond to. So I will just say thanks for the debate we did have.
Imreadyforit

Con

Imreadyforit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.