The Instigator
Solarman1969
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rob
Con (against)
Winning
82 Points

The loss of Television programming due to the Stike

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2007 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,152 times Debate No: 169
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (26)

 

Solarman1969

Pro

TV is a waste of time

It is great that the strike is happening-

If America learns to turn off the TV, this will be a greater Nation by far.

There will be less obesity, more intelligence, less violence, and more reading.
Rob

Con

TV in excess is indeed a bad thing, but anything in excess is a bad thing. Really, TV is just a medium like any other; getting rid of it would just make humanity's creative output less diverse, and makes no more sense than getting rid of all film, or all bronze-sculpting, or all graffiti art. I will concede that most TV is pretty trashy, but that doesn't mean we should just get rid of it when it has such untapped potential for mass entertainment and education.

But the real problem with your argument is that the writers' strike is not getting rid of all TV; it is just getting rid of the good _writing_ for TV! So we won't have people rushing to read books or exercise; instead, we'll just have people watching vastly more dumbed-down, poorly-written shows. Reality TV will dominate.

Note that I am not against the strike itself, as I think writers deserve to receive higher wages. Rather, I am against the idea that getting rid of TV altogether is important, necessary, or particularly good. I'm not aware of any proven correlation between television and violence, or television and stupidity. (Steven Berlin Johnson even wrote a book arguing that TV is making us smarter.) And with computers and video games becoming more common all the time, getting rid of TV would hardly make people that much less sedentary.
Debate Round No. 1
Solarman1969

Pro

Television is for the most part, a waste of time

There is a CLEAR correlation between the rise of television and a DECREASE in intelligence in the American populus. Look at test scores or any relevant measure of schools.

I am not saying that everyone shold get rid of their TV, even though I havent had one in 15 years and will never have one in my house. We live in a free country

I do disagree with you that the writers strike is a bad thing becuase it is clear from the nielsen ratings that people are NOT watching as much TV and thus they must be doing something else, more productive, like spednding time with family, getting outside, reading, playing games playing or seeing music, etc.

And of course , we agree that the writers strike is good for the writers, who deserve more recognition and pay.

And your fithermore agree that TV is "trashy"

you said I will concede that most TV is pretty trashy

So to conclude, the writers strike is good for the writers and to get people to stop watching so much TV and do more worthwhile things for their lives.

cheers
Rob

Con

And where is that correlation? Cite your source. The Flynn effect shows that the opposite is true: every decade or so, the average score on IQ tests has risen by 7 points, forcing the test scoring system to be constantly adjusted to compensate. Although this is probably due to a wide variety of factors, including improved nutrition, many experts think that one contributing factor is that people are exposed much more to visual stimulation, in the form of TV, art, film, computers, etc. A well-rounded person, therefore, should not solely read books, or solely watch television and movies; s/he should do a mix of both, since each engages different areas of the brain.

In any case, if you haven't had a TV in 15 years, how do you know that it is so harmful? It seems to me that it's easy to vilify something that you keep yourself distant from; closer contact demands a more nuanced view. (It is also easier to say "Bah, who needs it?" when something effects most other people, but not yourself--you aren't losing out on anything, after all.)

Moreover, quality of television programming has increased rather enormously since 1992: if you haven't seen shows like The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Grey's Anatomy, or The Daily Show, and instead are relying on memories of shows from back then like Full House or Saved by the Bell or MacGyver, then I don't think it's at all fair for you to judge current quality of programming based only on your own personal experience.

As for the Nielsen ratings, those haven't fallen _that_ dramatically (and Fox's haven't fallen at all), and you simply assume that people are replacing that time with more productive things. Although that may be partly true, I find it more plausible that people are simply seeking other forms of 'mindless entertainment' in the interim: movies, games, and a whole world of online content.

In any case, I'm not arguing that it would be a bad thing for people to watch less TV; I'm arguing that it's a bad thing for TV to lose its writers, almost the only thing giving any shows any intellectual value. As you noted, it's a free country: we shouldn't have to worsen the content of television to drive people away from it, as anyone's free to watch or not watch it when they desire. If people were reading too many books, would you recommend that we replace all the well-written books with terrible ones in order to lower readership to a more reasonable level?

And yes, a lot of TV is pretty poor--but it's much better than it used to be, and will continue to improve if people continue to demand good writing for shows; in that respect, the strike, although necessary for economic reasons, threatens to set television back several years as an artistic medium. If television content is subpar, we should _improve_ it, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. After all, there's nothing inherent about it that makes it less artistically worthy than theater, film, or indeed any performing art.
Debate Round No. 2
Solarman1969

Pro

We need to get back to the main argument

I argue the strike is GOOD- Good for the writers to get more money and recognition and good inasmuch as people will likely do something more productive with their time.

If you want to debate your tangential points defending TV in general, and about educational standards we can have a debate about that as well as a side topic.

On Television and why its bad

#1 Televison dramtically increases risk of ADHD in kids- this to me is a no brainer, as TV is bang bang bang so fast - not like life in general

ref : http://www.whitedot.org...

TV is TERRIBLE FOR KIDS- adults not so much

#2 Televison promotes and legitimizes and normalizes aberrant and morally destructive behavior

lets look at your favorite shows here

if you haven't seen shows like The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Grey's Anatomy, or The Daily Show,

these shows promote and celebrate violence, death, and adultery and their main themes.

the legitimization of violence and adultery in particular are BAD for society

Now if you chose to defend TV with the History Channel, Nature Channel ,and such I would be more in agreement

Also the COMMERCIALS are terribly annoying and disconcerting

Overall, i think we are in general agreement, Rob, America is a free country and if someone wants to eat cheetos and sit n the couch watching crap- go right ahead! This is America !

cheers
Rob

Con

The topic of this debate is not "The strike"; the topic is "The loss of television programming due to the strike". We both agree that the strike is a good thing, so it's a red herring for you to focus on the obvious fact that the writers deserve better pay. The real issue is television itself: is it inherently awful, irredeemably destructive, and just plain counterproductive? Or is it just a medium of creative expression like any other?

You haven't provided any evidence that "people will do something more productive with their time" if they don't watch as much TV, you've simply assumed that they will. Moreover, you've failed to address the vast majority of people who will continue to watch TV and just become used to far lower-quality programming; how can someone who is such an advocate of literature endorse TV lowering its standards of writing, much less advocate putting so many writers out of work altogether just to eliminate TV?

If you don't like TV, don't watch it. It's that simple. People who do like TV, however, should be free to watch the best-written and most engaging shows available, once the strike is over.

#1 Studies have only found links between television and ADHD in children under the age of 2. It's a "no-brainer," as you said, that parents shouldn't leave their babies watching TV non-stop; but there is no evidence that it is harmful for older children, much less teens or adults.

#2 So you advocate abolishing TV for moral reasons? What happened to this being a free country? And how, exactly, do Six Feet Under or The Daily Show "promote and celebrate violence, death, and adultery"?! (I won't dispute the morality of The Sopranos, though I don't think art needs to solely deal with moral characters in order to have value; and I'm less familiar with Grey's Anatomy, so someone else should probably address that, if anyone.) Have you even seen the shows I mentioned? If you're just judging them based on hearsay or synopses, that supports my point that your bias against TV is largely caused by your lack of exposure to the many quality series of recent years. There are both good shows and bad shows (in terms of moral messages and in terms of aesthetics alike), and your extremist perspective just doesn't reflect reality here.

As for the commercials... uh, sorry, but big whoop? You can always skip 'em if you have TiVo. :)

But yes, I agree that we are in general agreement on most points. If I hadn't been exposed to the good shows I have happened to see, I might even share your view on the aesthetic value of television in general. But as is, I still feel that the strike's only benefit is that it will give more power to writers, which in turn will hopefully further improve the writing quality of future series, until someday a play and a TV show are considered equally legitimate modes of artistic expression.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
AREA

I will never have a TV in my house for these reasons and many more

TV rots the brain

period , end of sentence

even debating cocky silly 15 year olds on this site is better that TV
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
Rob gets my vote for staying on issue more, and pointing out that people still watch TV even without new writing.

My 2 cents:
Sorry to break it to you, but most children under 2 have a TV in their rooms now… According to the Discovery Channel Podcast (was it early or mid 2007?)

Have read articles on negative effects of TV over/misuse and development on:

Behavior
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Speech problems
http://www.theage.com.au...

Sleep problems
http://www.cnn.com...

Attention problems
http://www.ldaamerica.org...
(although the site below claims attention problems are genetic)
http://www.guardian.co.uk...

IMHO, skipping commercials still seems like it should lead to ADHD since you would see many images while fast forwarding that are unrelated to the narrative of the TV show you are watching. Information overload.

It was suggested at least once that mood orders are linked too. Happy "googleing" on that one.

TVs are often over/misused, but they could also be used for good purposes.
It's one of the easier ways for illiterate people to get information, for instance.
Posted by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
No, we vote with Rob because he makes a better argument. I do not watch TV, actually.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
I guess we have alot of TV fans in the crowd : )

cheers
Posted by james94 9 years ago
james94
rob my vote goes with you i agree with you.
Posted by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
I would have to agree with "vicious_wit" because I think she said it the best.
Posted by vicious_wit 9 years ago
vicious_wit
I think solarman's debate is pure emotional sputter.

It was off-topic, hard to follow, grammatically incorrect, contradictory, and trite.

Nothing in this debate proved to me that you do it well, solarman.

Sorry.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
HAve not heard this angle, but come to think of it, it will be what is good for most pople. On the other hand, most people will get by just fine with re-runs and reality TV
26 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
Solarman1969RobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
Solarman1969RobTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
Solarman1969RobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by spoon171 9 years ago
spoon171
Solarman1969RobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Solarman1969RobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Jokerdude 9 years ago
Jokerdude
Solarman1969RobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jakehudspeth 9 years ago
jakehudspeth
Solarman1969RobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Rob 9 years ago
Rob
Solarman1969RobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dNA 9 years ago
dNA
Solarman1969RobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
Solarman1969RobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03