The Instigator
Igotnext1986
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Double_R
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

The over indulgence in our entertainment negatively affects how we view & treat each other.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,462 times Debate No: 17704
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (5)

 

Igotnext1986

Pro

*RESOLUTION*: Pro will be instigating different subjects related to the topic at hand. Con will be contending by trying to debunk my evidence with his own that it doesn't. Ultimately revealing the reality of our actions & how they directly/indirectly may/not have affect on how we view & treat each other. Both parties will be rationalizing & dissecting each others arguments to evolve new ideas.

RULES: First round is for acceptance & there will be a max character count to "murder the alphabet" on this topic once & for all.

CHALLENGER: I intend on commanding your full attention. >D

I await anxiously for my contender who's in between debates. I thank & admire you, Double_R for accepting when you are able to.
Double_R

Con

Background

My opponent and I have been going back and fourth in this subject for some time now. We have very different views and decided to express our differences in a formal debate. Our disagreements range over a few different topics and we finally arrived at this resolution as the best way to cover all the basic points of our views.

Resolution

The resolution is more of a broad topic and will be clarified by whatever argument Pro makes in round 2. My role in this debate is to show why his case is unreasonable by refuting his points and if needed, providing my own.

Over indulgence
: Pros use of this word in the resolution assumes that this is the case when it comes to entertainment in our culture. Part of my argument is that this is not the case, and that Pro misinterprets the connection most people have with entertainment.

Voters

Voters are reminded that personal opinion of the resolution should not play a role in deciding the most convincing argument. For those who may be unfamiliar with acceptable voting criteria please read the following:

http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Igotnext1986

Pro

Sorry for taking the full 3 days to respond- life was getting in the way. Here I am!

Opening Statement: What will be the breaking point for our own overindulgence? Where does it end? One day, this empire of overfed, over-shopped, over-texted, over-informed, over-entertained, and over-amused will collapse under it's own weight. Until then, there are those who stand by & accept it as the status quo. Blinded in their own selfish & shady values blurring the lines of truth & reality. "Its just entertainment?!"

Exhibit A: A LeBron fan being ejected for wearing his jersey to a Cleveland Indians Baseball game. It starts off with a fan & I'm assuming his date (girl) being escorted out by 2 security officers. Lets look at the circumstances in its context:

Here is a fan of LeBron wearing his jersey at a Cleveland BASEBALL game & being ejected for that. The majority are taking their personal feelings & turning it into a vendetta AGAINST LEBRON, while taking it out on his fan who's the minority-- AT A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT EVENT! Although it is accepted as the status quo of how things will always be!? Calling HIM (the fan) "Disrespectful?!" for having the nerve to wear his jersey at a Cleveland entertainment event! So in result, they didn't like the shirt he was wearing so they decided to kick him out! Now kiddies, what's that spell? C-E-N-S-O-R-S-H-I-P!! Yay!!!

The argument here is that LeBron emancipated himself from the city of Cleveland when he decided to "Take his talents to South Beach" on his 1 hour ESPN special "The Decision." I can understand how fans felt about that but we are all someone's sons & daughters or parents with their own. We all grow up & make our own decisions BUT we can't control what our loved ones or favourite athletes will do with their lives!? The same rules apply to our entertainers, even if you pay their salaries to supply themselves with food, clothes, shelter & LOVE! We all have to make decisions that makes sense for us. LeBron made his decision & in such a disgraceful way that it was like pouring salt on the wound. They wanted him to stay & win a championship that he promised. Then he changed his mind & made a decision he thought was best for him. We are allowed to change our minds & make decisions for ourselves & there are always going to be critics of it. Though, it was the way he did it that seems to resonate & the fuel that burned his jersey. The status quo with the entertainers is that they are the "pie in the face" people (the ridicule & scrutiny comes with the job description) & because they help pay their salaries by buying tickets, merchandise, or watch the games on television, that they own a piece of them. They self righteously believe they are meant to hold ONLY the entertainers accountable for their actions- even when they paraded around town & burning his jersey in protest like a bunch of Vietnam veterans, burning the American flag in a righteous cause & disgracing themselves by acting in such a way. The overindulgent hold entertainment on a higher pedestal than they should THEMSELVES. What kind of example are you setting by acting this way, in front of your children who look up to you?

Shouldn't all individuals be allowed to do whatever he wants as long as it doesn't impede on someone elses happiness? The answer to that is: YES! Though the fans, media & politicians [Gov' of Ohio proclaiming The Dallas Mavericks honorary citizens, for defeating their "EVIL SON" LeBron James (not the Miami Heat) in the NBA Finals] have proven, they don't want that to be the case cause entertainment is filled with politics & predigest. To me, where it goes too far & where CON & I differentiate/separate, is that CON accepts censoring the things in society that you think, in terms of ideas or the exchange of ideas (the jersey is a symbol of freedom of speech), that doesn't mesh well with your own morals & ethics. I want to live in a society where people can voice & say unpopular opinions & ideas or wear clothes you may find "offensive" because the result of that will be a society that grows & matures. By censoring that fans right to freely express himself & impede on his happiness (because you don't like the name on the back of his jersey), you show ignorance by only accepting whats right for you. As you can see the selfish & corrupted behaviour of how we view & treat each other is a result of this human construct we have built in this 'overindulgent' ideology of entertainment.

Exhibit B: The NHL Finals riots in Vancity

I can make the case that if LeBron beat the Dallas Mavericks to claim his first championship away from Cleveland- Fans there would have reacted the same way Vancouver fans did. This is a prime example of how people's overindulgence in their entertainment, can blur the lines of reality & truth in their actions. If you look at it from a stand point without knowing what the riot was about, you could have sworn the cities inhabitants rights were revoked without a warning. Like on April 29, 1992, when a jury acquitted four white Los Angeles Police Department officers accused in the videotaped beating of black motorist Rodney King following a high-speed pursuit. Thousands of people in the Los Angeles area rioted over the six days following the verdict. This goes to show that there are worst things that happen in the world that gets swept under the rug & continues to go unnoticed while the ignorance of the self indulgent are more than happy to blissfully ignore it. Losing all composure in themselves because they've overindulged in their entertainment. Thus affecting how everyone viewed the city of Vancouver because of the actions of some ignorant angry fans. Thankfully, a positive has come from all that: http://www.vancitybuzz.com... ...but how far does it have go to recognize overindulgence in anything can make you an addict? When you become addicted, you ignore all sense of right & wrong to get a fix by stepping on whoever may get in the way as long as it pertains only to your interests!

In closing of my opening statement, I'd like to show this video.

Exhibit C: "We're in A Lot of Trouble!"

Howard Beale in the "Network" explains how technology has surpassed humanity & because of our overindulgence in entertainment is preventing us from not seeing the truth in reality. For the powers that be, paint illusions over our eyes to protect their interests & we breath in their fairytales of how things should be, instead of what is. Living in a human construct built on an illusion to keep you busy from noticing that there's something wrong with it! This all effects how we are treated & viewed by the elites who control what they want us to know by using entertainment as "tools" of spreading their propaganda on their order of things as they are TODAY. As a result, Exhibit A &
B mirrors our natural order of things by censoring the fan in X:A & the Vancity riots in X:B demonstrates that the level of ignorance in the overindulgence of entertainment, can impact all of us.

Playing into the hands of what the powers that be want us to believe is right & wrong. Completely losing face with reality & the truth of whats happening in front of them. No longer thinking in terms of people's & nations but "ME". Living under a security blanket of liberties & rights, when governments have proven time & time again, they contract & expand as it wants to by accommodating these changes to you liberties. The same goes for this superiority complex when finding ways to only hold entertainers accountable & placing them on pedestals so you can chop them down whenever you deem it necessary as long as it pertains to your interests.

We are what we do, not what we say.
Double_R

Con

Question for Pro: Who exactly are the “powers that be”???

I apologize to my opponent but I must say that I had a very difficult time following exactly what the case that is being made here is. The resolution is about how entertainment affects our culture. I stated before as a clarification that my role would be to show Pros case as unreasonable but this is very difficult when there is no definitive case being made. Mostly all of Pros points are valid only if the premise is assumed, and other points either have no support or do not seem to have any relevance. In this round I will focus on showing Pros premise to be false by using his quotes.

Before I begin a quick note is that Pro again makes statements about “overindulgence”. I mentioned earlier that this word is part of the debate, not an assumption in it. Since the word “over” in this case means “too much”, debating weather overindulgence in anything is bad is like debating weather crazy people are crazy.

Exhibit A: A LeBron fan being ejected

“Here is a fan of LeBron wearing his jersey at a Cleveland BASEBALL game & being ejected for that”

Pro assumes that the fan was kicked out simply for wearing a LeBron James jersey, this is not the case. In the video we have news coverage of the very same incident, at 2:08 in you can see the news anchor stating that the couple was escorted out for their own safety because they were instigating the situation.

“The majority are taking their personal feelings & turning it into a vendetta AGAINST LEBRON, while taking it out on his fan who's the minority”

Pro is suggesting that the fans personal feelings toward LeBron lead them to take it out on this fan. For some this may be the case, for the majority it is not. Let’s first realize that this is a packed stadium full of people. Anytime you group thousands of passionate people together in an event, the need for crowd control to prevent incidents like this come into play. It happens in bars, clubs, parades, etc… It is part of human nature, not the result of entertainment.

More importantly what bothers most fans in a case like this is not the personal vendetta people have against LeBron but the level of disrespect shown by this fan flaunting his jersey in front of the very fans who were affected by LeBron’s “decision”. Pro seems to think this has nothing to do with it. I would ask Pro, would you wear all white to a funeral? Would you keep your hat on while the national anthem is being played at an event? I hope not. What you wear says something to people around you. It is about respect not all about entertainment. Combine this with the point above and it is predictable that something like this might happen.

Exhibit B: The NHL Finals riots in Vancity

“I can make the case that if LeBron beat the Dallas Mavericks to claim his first championship away from Cleveland- Fans there would have reacted the same way Vancouver fans did”

This is a debate. Hypothetical predictions are not an argument.

“When you become addicted, you ignore all sense of right & wrong to get a fix by stepping on whoever may get in the way as long as it pertains only to your interests!”

Yes I agree. What does this have to do with entertainment? One of the major issues with Pro argument is that it focuses on the actions of a small number of individuals, and trying to make a case that somehow entertainment in general seems to be bad because of it. No reasonable person condones what happened in Vancouver, but some people are just looking for a reason to act this way.

Currently there are 1,700 police officers being sent to London to stop riots that started over the shooting of a man by police(2). While people may be upset about the incident I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that all of the crime and violence is because of the anger people have about what happened. Most of the crimes that occurred were referred to as “copy-cat criminal activity”. Many people, particularly young males tend to enjoy physical confrontation and an opportunity to break something. This is there opportunity. By this point the rioting in London has just as much to do with the shooting as the riots in Vancouver had to do with Hockey.

Exhibit C: "We're in A Lot of Trouble!"

“This all effects how we are treated & viewed by the elites who control what they want us to know by using entertainment as "tools" of spreading their propaganda on their order of things as they are TODAY.”

I would ask my opponent to please explain what is meant by this statement. Who are the elites? What is their plan? What propaganda are you referring?

“Exhibit A… mirrors our natural order of things by censoring the fan in X:A”

As I have shown the fan was not censored. There was a legitimate reason for his being escorted out.

“Vancity riots in X:B demonstrates that the level of ignorance in the overindulgence of entertainment”

X:B demonstrates how stupid people can be when given a reason, just like in London.

“Living under a security blanket of liberties & rights, when governments have proven time & time again, they contract & expand as it wants to by accommodating these changes to you(r) liberties.”

Again, please explain. What changes to our liberties are you referring?

“The same goes for this superiority complex when finding ways to only hold entertainers accountable & placing them on pedestals so you can chop them down whenever you deem it necessary as long as it pertains to your interests.”

This sounds familiar. Anyway, this statement does not give any support for where its premise comes from so will focus on refuting it when Pro decides to give us an example in this debate.

Conclusion

A debate is conducted by supporting a resolution with contentions, and supporting those contentions with facts or reasoning to conclude those contentions are valid. Pro has made many claims and assumptions but has not supported a specific case leaving me unsure what argument to counter with. The resolution states that entertainment negatively affects how we treat each other. Entertainment is certainly an outlet for incidents to happen but the incidents Pro has provided are not only the exception rather then the norm, but also a result of human nature more so then entertainment. Pro has also made many wild statements that I can not begin to counter without understanding what he is saying.

I will hold off on any counter argument until next round when I will hopefully have a better understanding of the full argument Pro is making.
Debate Round No. 2
Igotnext1986

Pro

Rebuttal:

"Who exactly are the powers that be?"
^^
I was hoping you would ask... >D

EX. C: "We're in a lot of trouble!"

"I'm talking about the real owners, the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions."... "It's a big club, and you ain't in it! You and I are not in the ‘big club;'"..."The owners of this country know the truth, it's called the American Dream: cause you gotta be asleep, to believe it."..."They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking.They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. -George Carlin

"The resolution is about how entertainment affects our culture; Since the word "over" in this case means "too much", debating weather overindulgence in anything is bad is like debating weather crazy people are crazy."
^^
Correction: Its about how "too much" of entertainment affects our culture. I assume you've never heard the expression "Too much of anything can make you an addict?" You can argue I'm a cooke- conspiracy buff, but the truth of "who they are" gets ignored because society has their heads stuck up their entertainment!! You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, they've long since bought and payed for the Senate, the Congress, the State Houses & City Halls. They control what you think & CONSUME...

"Mostly all of Pros points are valid only if the premise is assumed, and other points either have no support or do not seem to have any relevance."
^^
Oh, like these assuming questions that also have no relevance, you gave me in Exhibit A?

-"I would ask Pro, would you wear all white to a funeral?"
^^
No ones dead... yet.

-"Would you keep your hat on while the national anthem is being played at an event? I hope not."
^^
Actually, I take my Canada flag pants off & hang ‘em towards the flag.

"They tell you to take off your hat. What does a hat have to do with being patriotic? What possible relationship exists between the uncovered head and a feeling that ought to live in your heart? Suppose you have a red, white and blue hat? Suppose you have a hat made out of the flag? Why would you take it off to honor the flag? Wouldn't you leave it on? And point it toward the flag!" -George Carlin

"Relevance!" ... I showed you mine, now you show me yours!

EX. B: The NHL Finals riots in Vancity

"This is a debate. Hypothetical predictions are not an argument."
^^
Sustained... but I still like to say it because we all know fans are fans alike! =p

I'll let it resonate cause I feel its all relative. :)

"What does this have to do with entertainment?" [refer. to being addicted to entertainment]
^^
EVERYTHING! Fans destroying public property because they "Lost their collective $hit (if I may speak frankly)!" The indulgence has affected the entire city of Vancouver & a big blemish on our culture because truth is... it takes its riots as serious as their entertainment! Thats a scary thought...

"Pro argument is that it focuses on the actions of a small number of individuals, and trying to make a case that somehow entertainment in general seems to be bad because of it."
^^
Entertainment is shady! Its filled with politics & predigest! Con seems to hide behind these examples ("Minority Instances") & believes their actions do not affect the majority of our culture. By destroying a city because of the end result of a hockey game, where thousands of people live & go to work everyday, it DOES have an affect! It certainly regresses the maturity of our culture!

"By this point the rioting in London has just as much to do with the shooting as the riots in Vancouver had to do with Hockey."
^^
Both London & Vancity had "copycats"- maybe even escalated it all because they capitalized on the overindulgence of the fans in Vancity. Still doesn't change that they did it in a fit of rage because there addiction had taken over. Same goes, only this time In London, where civilians have every right to be pissed off! Vancity, the indulgence was the catalyst that gave the "copy-cats" an opportunity to get away with it. If fans would have kept their heads on straight, none of that would have happened in the first place!

EX. A: LeBron Fan being ejected- "In his OWN WORDS."

"... at 2:08 in you can see the news anchor stating that the couple was escorted out for their own safety because they were instigating the situation."
^^
Yet, they haven't given him his money back & he haven't received any word from the Indians organization. It sure as hell doesn't hide the fact, that his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT was taken away?! Just like "the powers that be," they take them away whenever they see fit! Another point- I love how the media throws wood on the fire by expressing "...this guy was lucky he didn't get a beat down!"; or "Here's a can of common sense for next time." Spreading the ignorance all over the news! Freedom of Speech/Expression FOR ALL! Anywhere! Anytime! The constitution is everything America is about... if only they would live up to it!

... NEXT!

"Pro is suggesting that the fans personal feelings toward LeBron lead them to take it out on this fan. For some this may be the case, for the majority it is not."
^^
Your right! Not everyone, in the stadium who was booing, was within striking distance to throw peanuts & beer at them!

"It is part of human nature, not the result of entertainment;"..." "The level of disrespect shown by this fan flaunting his jersey in front of the very fans who were affected by LeBron's ‘decision'."
^^
Maybe thats the problem, CON & you accept it as the status quo. The newscaster says it perfectly. "... by Showing up & showing off" A Miami Heat LeBron Jersey & Police say, ‘YOOOOOOUR OUT OF HERE!!!!!!!" Fans need to understand just because you don't like what someone's wearing at an event- DOESN'T MAKE THEM A BAD GUY. Sure as hell doesn't warrant getting ejected by the police!? As a result of entertainment, those fans stomped on this guys happiness, for the sake of their own... because its the "natural order of how things are done, TODAY."

NEW POINTS!!!

-"The second they got to their seats the harassment started." See, this guy only wore a jersey- HIS RIGHT- then got accosted with boos from the entire stadium, until it escalated where people started throwing beer & peanuts because they are a bunch of crazy self-absorbed bitter ex's. No where in the Constitution does it say "Freedom to express yourself- but only outside of public events where the city is still going through a bad breakup period." Since when can someones rights be revoked for that & does his feelings & rights not count?! He was outnumbered by too many ignorant & immature fans who couldn't see past it. As a result, they were more than happy to let our POLICE brush this act under the rug with the rest of the ignorance. The difference: This happened in front of thousands of witnesses & a media outlet acknowledging its ignorance but don't seem to care!? Affecting how their audience ("culture") who absorbs everything & help spread the view of the accosted fan of being the bad guy!

"The whole crowd was crazy! I said nothing back to them. I was just sitting there wearing my jersey."..."Did you throw that peanut at me? Fan says, "Yeah & I meant too!"
^^
They escorted HIM out! The people throwing peanuts, beer & getting aggressive WERE NOT!? Though they say, "for your own safety"- then give him back his money for the tickets or even kick out some of those aggressive fans along with them!? Now Kiddies, you remember what that is, RIGHT!? CENSORSHIP! Not to mention thats a shameful way to act & even more so that the media encourages it.

He didn't seem like a disrespectful guy to me? He sounded like a pretty cool & level headed human being. I can't thank you enough for this credible video!

I didn't finish my rebuttal but I will
Double_R

Con

In the previous round I stated again that the word “over” in the resolution means “too much”, which is a senseless debate. Pro responds by ignoring my point for the second time and repeating the same thing I just said was not the agreed resolution. So once again “too much” of anything is by its very definition a bad thing, so Pros points that “too much” entertainment is bad is a senseless debate and not what I agreed to. My contention from the start is that Pro believes most people are overindulged in their entertainment when many times this is not the case. I have given examples of how other natural factors contributed to the results of the links Pro gave and he has yet to provide any valid rebuttal.


I stated that I would provide a counter argument when Pro clarified what his full argument is, which I don’t feel he has yet succeeded in doing so. He has so far showed that the fan who was escorted out of the baseball game and the riots in Vancouver were examples of poor human behavior, and that both of these examples were started by indulgence in entertainment. But what have these two examples established? Is he suggesting he has proven that entertainment negatively affects us because of two isolated examples? The only assumption I can make at this point is yes, so I will continue based on that premise.


1. The powers that be


Although Pro was not exactly clear on this, I do thank my opponent for answering the question of who these “powers” are. Now I would like to ask: What do these “powers that be” have to do with this debate?


2. Exhibit A: LeBron Fan being ejected


In round 2 Pro gave an example of a fan who was escorted out of a baseball game. I explained that the level of respect he showed his fellow citizens by wearing a LeBron Jersey to an Indians baseball game, played a larger role in what happened then the vendetta people have against LeBron. I used an analogy showing how what you wear says something to the people around you by asking Pro if he would wear all white to a funeral, his response was: “No ones dead... yet”. Pro has completely failed to acknowledge my main point here that entertainment was not the major factor in what happened. It was mostly due to a lack of respect, and an excuse for followers to join in ridiculing someone else. Many people for some reason enjoy picking on someone else. It is a part of human nature that has nothing to do with indulgence in entertainment.


Pro also tries to somehow throw the constitution into this argument. The constitution is a document that gives our Government the authority to enact certain laws into society, it has absolutely nothing to do with a fans right to not be ridiculed for wearing the wrong thing at a baseball game.


Finally pro tries to claim that this individual seems “like a pretty cool and level headed human being”. First of all, he is being interviewed, of course he is going to give the best story he can to make himself seem that way. Yet despite what happened, this very same fan stated that he would do it again. That does not sound very level headed to me.


3. Exhibit B: The NHL Finals riots in Vancity


Pro does acknowledge my London riots example but then insinuates that the emotional reaction from hockey is what started the riots in Vancouver. This is true, and a good relevant point. But the issue with this is that anything can be blamed on anything using this logic. Just because something starts a reaction does not mean it is fully responsible for the eventual results. If for example I tell a friend of mine about a party, and while on his way to it he gets a speeding ticket should I be blamed for his ticket? By Pros logic the answer would be yes.


So while hockey did start the riot, from that point on it was just an excuse for people to cause the damage that eventually occurred. The people did not loose sight of reality or become “overindulged” in entertainment as Pro claims, they simply saw an opportunity to do what they wanted and took advantage of it. Sadly many people out there enjoy flipping over cars or breaking windows.


Counter argument


My arguments to this point may not seem very strong because I am arguing against the most negative examples of what happens after disappointments in entertainment. But the major problem with Pros argument is that as I mentioned before these are extreme and very rare events that do not affect our every day lives. Many other aspects of indulgence in entertainment however does.


1. Entertainment gives us a reason to re-connect


We have all been to Super Bowl parties, World Cup gatherings, movies, etc… These are opportunities for people to take advantage of, and gather friends and family to come together and have a good time. If we did not indulge ourselves in our entertainment then these events would not be a big deal and many people would not show up to them.


2. Entertainment allows strangers to warm up to each other


How many of us have ever found ourselves next to a complete stranger with nothing to say to each other yet found ourselves talking about sports or a movie or celebrity? It is a perfect way to get into a conversation because it is something we mostly all tend to understand and enjoy. And when people are indulged in their entertainment it creates a stronger bond between two people because they have something in common that they feel very strongly about. Many friendships have begun and grew stronger because of it.


3. Entertainment gives us something to celebrate


There is no greater feeling among people when their wishes in entertainment come true. Like when their team wins a championship or when that long anticipated blockbuster movie comes out. It creates an aura of excitement that only gets greater and the level of indulgence increases.


Conclusion


Pros points which were refuted, still do not affirm his resolution. I was expecting him to provide some summary statements to further explain his full argument but he has not done so, leaving me to us the only reasonable interpretation I can to argue against. When looking at his resolution all he has done is given two examples of the worst that can result in entertainment, while my examples show the positive affects entertainment has on everyday life which are far more common then the examples Pro gave. Clearly, our overall indulgence in entertainment does not negatively affect how we view and treat each other.

Debate Round No. 3
Igotnext1986

Pro

I do not have enough space to quote Con's points & finish making my own. Though I'm confident the voters will notice I've addressed them all.

You had plenty of time to mull this resolution over when I checked with you ‘numerous times' to make sure we had a resolution set. I've been VERY clear on my position... I haven't ran from anything? I've stood my ground & filled my space, like a Spartan! >D

I chose those 3 examples to establish the level of how far our OUR cultures overindulgence will go & the consequences of it. It should make everyone question why this ‘Poor human behavior' happened to begin with. The root of the problems in all my examples grow from overindulgence. I have shown that EX.'s A,B, & C are the result of it. All the points & rebuttals that you've made have proven only your intolerance & immaturity. There you go again, calling them ‘isolated' instances. These are all pretty BIG ‘instances' showing just exactly where the maturity level is at in our culture. We should all be worried that it has come this far.

1. "The powers that be..."

"I'd take a dose of bull$hit over the truth, any day."- Lady Gaga

They (YOUR GOVERNMENT) control what you think & CONSUME..." I thought I explained this already in EX.C in R1? People are more than happy to stick their heads in the sand, while consumed in their entertainment. Becoming more complacent to overindulge in it (EX.A & B) while ignoring reality (EX.C). I suggest you watch the video & read R1, again. WAKE UP!

2. EX.A
Allow me to undress it for you! :)

Censorship: is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

What about showing respect & dignity in acceptance, instead of cruel & immature intolerance? I find intolerance & censorship DISRESPECTFUL! You talk about respect but support the actions of those who have none! Instead, who DEMAND it be given to them without the consideration of others rights & feelings! You say, its about respect for those ex's who are still going through ‘post-breakup' trauma. I guess if they are taking the breakup seriously, it must have to do with LeBron/entertainment, eh? *ZING*

HERE'S YOUR ‘WEARING WHITE TO A FUNERAL' ANALOGY: "How dare he wear that jersey at this party!? He should know there's a dress code in effect! That inconsiderate slimeball! Lets all boo him together and throw peanuts & beer at them, as we escort them out!" If what happened to this fan, wasn't the result of bitter feelings towards LeBron, than thats like having the maturity to say "He must have been wearing the wrong colors in the wrong neighborhood." NO RELEVANCE! "I never knew you can get escorted out for wearing the wrong jersey, to the wrong game?!" They clearly showed they didn't care about anyone else's rights, but their own by being affected by his "decision." He had every right to wear it! PERIOD! This isn't an opinion to be debated, its a fact to be dealt with." -Obama

Am I missing something? To deem a jersey "offensive" they must have raw, bitter & emotional feelings for that player or the fan must have walked into the stadium, wearing a sign that read, "YUCK FOU, CLEVELAND!" ...But he said & did nothing to instigate? Last time I checked, what the fan did wasn't morally, ethically, or legally wrong! So if your going to let a jersey (which all it is, if what CON says is true: "...there is no vendetta against LeBron") easily offend you, than you have no business going out to sporting events. The boos, peanuts, beer & insults proves they are taking this break-up too seriously! This proves their overindulgence has a selfish & corrupt sense of entitlement. A human construct they built in their entertainment, thats mirroring the natural order of things (EX.C). Its his right too wear it where ever he wants! I suggest you grow up & accept that!

Your only affirming the raw attachment those fans have against LeBron. It was a way of copping with the reminder of LeBron leaving, so they used FORCE to kick them out! If your wife left you to take care of your child, who may look like her & ‘serve as a reminder' of the frustration of being a single parent, would you take it out on your child? No... then why so immature, allowing an instance like EX.A to happen?! As human beings, we are all in this together & if one man's rights are taken away- THAN SO ARE EVERYONE ELSE'S! Even if you don't like what they have to say....

3. EX. B

I don't want to mislead Con, this community & most importantly, myself. What's happening in London is shocking & inexcusable. The looting & destruction of public property is disgraceful but the anger & frustration, in the coverup conspiracy of Mark Duggans' death, is understandable. I'm not condoning without condemning these actions but these guys have more of a legitimate beef with the police, than the fans in Vancouver have with the NHL Finals, wouldn't you say? The London & Vancity riots are polar opposites in the seriousness behind their reasoning. Vancouver's beef was about the END RESULT of a hockey game!? Whether it was copy-cats who started the rioting or not, just seeing fans lose all sense of themselves in doing it should make you ask yourself, "Is entertainment worth rioting over?!" If fans weren't getting lost in their addictions & kept their composure, there wouldn't be any copycats! Sports fans should be level headed enough to know their are more worthy causes to stand up & fight for, other than because the home team lost! They are supposed to know the difference between right & wrong! The fact a riot ensued because of it, should make any rational human being shake their head & wonder where it all went wrong. Sometimes the good guys lose but its not worth tipping cars over for? They reacted like a fiend who was craving for a fix... but you just call it the ‘status quo' of human nature & why WE SHOULD ACCEPT IT AS IT IS....ignorance. [http://www.guardian.co.uk... ]

Counter Argument:
According to the American Society of Addiction Medicine, the definition for ‘addiction' http://en.wikipedia.org... "...is characterized by impairment in behavioral control, craving, inability to consistently abstain, and diminished recognition of significant problems with one's behaviors and interpersonal relationships." This includes abnormal psychological dependency on such things as ENTERTAINMENT!

1. I'm saying ‘OVERindulgence' makes us lose sight of "RIGHT & WRONG" and becomes an addiction. Nothing wrong with enjoying entertainment- we're all slaves to it. Until people take it ‘seriously' enough to riot over & lose all sense of who they are, than it turns into OVERINDULGENCE. In EX.A & B, you can see the actions were a result of the fans addictions getting the better of them. Showing complete disregard for public property or the feelings of others. Stepping on whoever or whatever, in an attempt to make the pain go away. All were too busy being stuck on themselves to think about others. Most importantly, both EX.A & B mirror the natural order of how things are done by ignoring someone's right to freely express themselves, showing ignorance for their actions & for the truth in the consequences of their OVERindulgence in EX.C. So far YOU haven't made ‘valid' enough points to debunk ANY of these accusations.
2. Its all fine an dandy... until they come together & smash a car window in a fit of rage! Again... OVERINDULGENCE is the word in the RESOLUTION!
3. I'm sure it must have been exhilarating to make complete a$$'s of themselves without having to face the consequences.

CONCLUSION: Con is in denial, uninformed, delusional, hypocritical, intolerant & immature.
Credit Music: "Don't succumb to hate, overcome hate with LOVE." -Shad

Vote P!
Double_R

Con

Pro is apparently trying to turn to technicalities to assist him in winning this debate, if that’s how he wants to play it then allow me to point out a few:


In round one I stated that the word “over” in the resolution was part of the debate not an assumption in it. Pro did not address it in the following round and continued with an argument that makes this assumption. Technically this is a concession, thus “over” is not part of the resolution being debated.

Even if you don’t buy that point (which is not necessary), Pro still has not affirmed his own resolution. He has done nothing but shown two examples of the worst that can happen as the eventual result of “overindulgence” in entertainment. Since the resolution states that “the overindulgence in entertainment negatively affects how we view and treat each other” it was Pros responsibility to show how the bad outweighs the good to make the overall effect negative. Yet Pro has completely failed to acknowledge my counter argument that shows the positive sides of overindulgence, and failed to show how his examples even compare in terms of how many of us are affected by it.

Also in order for “overindulgence” to negatively affect how we view and treat each other people must first be overindulged to begin with. If I am showing how people are not nearly as indulged as Pro suggests and Pro does not acknowledge those points or provide a valid refutation, then he has essentially conceded those argumentative points and therefore failed to show that people are overindulged in the first place. So even if his argument is correct he still has not met his burden of proof.

Pros argument centers on how overindulgence in entertainment is bad. This is not the debate. We are debating what is caused by it. Most of Pros case is completely irrelevant and is essentially an argument with a straw man. Of course overindulgence is bad, that is why it is called overindulgence. Of course the rioting and treatment of the LeBron fan was bad, what caused it is a completely different argument, one which Pro has hardly made. Instead he attacks me saying I support this behavior which I clearly do not.

The Powers That Be

Pro mentions that he gave 3 examples in this debate, he is apparently including his exhibit C. Yet the video did not play and even if it did it would not matter because this is a debate, Pro must explain his example. Yet all Pro has offered is Howard Beale’s one sentence explanation of it. That is not an argument.

Pro also claims that the Government controls what we think and consume. How does Pro explain this? Is the government controlling my thoughts as I am writing this rebuttal? Did the government control my decision to order fried chicken wings earlier today? I would watch Pros video but since he did not explain what the point it makes is, it is not an argument. It is Pros responsibility to explain his arguments, not show videos to make them for him.

Exhibit A

Pro continues with his censorship argument while he has still not acknowledged my point that the LeBron fan was not being censored. The jersey he was wearing was not the reason he was escorted out. This whole thing happened because of the commotion which he caused, and was making worse. Pro has no proof of what caused the commotion to get to that point, yet he bases his entire argument on it.

Pro more importantly ignores my case that elements of human nature lead to that commotion getting out of hand more so then overindulgence entertainment. Pro makes a point that the jersey must stir up bitter emotions for it to be considered in the first place, which is true and in fact common sense. This is what makes his choice disrespectful. His jersey is basically telling the people around him to “go **** themselves”. This is the point where that bitterness turns into what it did. That is the point where the situation went beyond indulgence in entertainment.

Exhibit B

Pro makes much the same argument for the rioting. Yes hockey did start the riots, but what they turned into went beyond entertainment. People see other people flipping cars and they want to join in, they see chaos and it becomes an opportunity to break windows and steel things with little chance of getting caught. At that point the hockey is long forgotten.

Pro states that the London and Vancouver Riots are “polar opposites in their reasoning”. Yes they were, yet the result is exactly the same. This just proves my case that the riots are not the result of entertainment, but rather human nature. People will riot if they have a reason to and if there is insufficient means to stop it.

Pro still refers to the status quo and weather we should accept it. I am not nor have I ever stated that we should accept it. This debate is not about weather we should accept anything, it is about what causes and results from it. Pro is mixing two completely different arguments, one of which has nothing to do with the resolution.

Counter Argument

I am not quite sure if this is supposed to be a rebuttal to my counter argument, if so it fails miserably as it does not address one point I made. It just reiterates the same argument he has been trying to make throughout this debate.

Pros conclusion

“Con is in denial, uninformed, delusional, hypocritical, intolerant & immature.”

I’d like to thank Pro for attacking me personally, granting me easy conduct points.

Conclusion

I certainly agree that overindulgence in entertainment is bad. That is why it is called overindulgence. Yet Pros case that it negatively affects how we view and treat each other fails as he has only shown 2 examples of the worst possible scenarios while ignoring my counter argument that much more common good is caused by it.

It would be impossible for voters to justify his argument being more convincing when he fails to acknowledge a counter that shows his resolution to be negated. And even if you agree with his side of the resolution, his arguments were very difficult to understand and the only thing convincing about them were his videos.


Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Igotnext1986 5 years ago
Igotnext1986
aww common... don't be a party pooer
Posted by Igotnext1986 5 years ago
Igotnext1986
'Blaming the rioting on hockey is like putting the blame for the guy who murdered his hole family on his boss who fired him. It would not be the Bosses fault that the family is dead, the blame goes to the crazy guy who could not deal with life.'

See... thats the kind of reference I'm talking about! You have no clue! I wouldn't blame his boss for the death of his family?! I would blame him for letting his frustration cloud his vision of whats wrong & right! This kind of example just to goes to show exactly where you stand in this debate. Not only that, but you have already unconsciously admitted of having no idea what this debate was all about to begin with ("We were NEVER debating whether "obsession" with entertainment was negative."). You haven't asked the all important question: WHY DID THIS HAPPEN!? Your easy bull$hit answer was, "It's human nature." Well that's not going to cut it in this debate!

In all 3 instances I proved, without a doubt that excessive obsession (overindulgence/'internal issues') with ones entertainment, can affect our culture in a negative way. You seem to think I'm blaming entertainment- thats where you're wrong. Just like in your reference, I'm blaming THEM for their overindulgence that clouded their vision's of whats wrong & right- like an addiction. THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE reacted the same way!? One person might have had a lot of money riding on the game-overindulegent; one person might still have been going through the post-breakup trauma- overindulgent; etc etc. Everyone might have slightly more personal reasons but no matter how personal, they all shared a common problem that rooted from the same place:

OVERINDULGENCE!

That's not speculation... that's a fact that needs to be dealt with. You claim my BOP was 'insufficient' especially for EX.C, but that was a generalization of the TRUTH of whats going on in our world TODAY. If its TRUE- I believe it does fill the BOP quota...
Posted by Igotnext1986 5 years ago
Igotnext1986
That's not speculation.. That %^&*en HAPPENED!
Posted by Igotnext1986 5 years ago
Igotnext1986
So all of that was based on PURE SPECULATION (@Lickdafoot) and had nothing to do with peoples overindulgence with their obsessions with Hockey, LeBron & overall entertainment!? That's nuts!!!

You want to know what internal issues they had!? OVERINDULGENCE!! THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE let their addiction/overindulgence get the better of them! Showing EXACTLY that excess in ones entertainment can prove harmful for themselves and those around them. They blew up some cars and threw some peanuts & beer but I don't blame public property or the fan in the LeBron jersey, for instigating them in doing? No... I blame THEM for letting their addiction get the better of them.

1. Oppressing & discriminating against a fan (who was well within his FIRST AMENDMENT) for FREELY expressing himself. <<No where does it say you can't wear a LeBron jersey in Cleveland because the city is still going through a 'bad break up period.' To me, that says a lot about how personal that was....
2. Rioting over an end result of a hockey game. <<THAT HAPPENED!! They let their overindulgence get the better of them. They lost sight of whats worth fighting for because they had their heads stuck up their entertainment! I don't care what problems they had in their lives... its a hockey game! They should know the difference between right & wrong. PERIOD!
and...
3. People distracting themselves from reality by shoving their heads up their entertainment! So that they will NEVER understand, they pose no threat of critically thinking about the truth of the consequences of being a lab rat in cage & never questioning the order of its place. Thus, never escaping their psychoses. Forever trapped in an environment like a 'fish tank.'

Proving their petty immature intolerance & indifference for someone else's right to express themselves and destroying public property because their team lost in the NHL Finals-- shows just how SEVERE their overindulgence was by losing sight of whats wrong & right.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Yes someone else understands your point, just as I do. I never called your argument delusional. If I did call your argument delusional your natural reaction would be to look around at who else agrees with you to show that you are not the only one who gets your point.

"What internal issues did the fans have, in each of those circumstances, to make them act that way?"

The reason I have not answered this question is because I am tired answering this question. If you paid attention to my arguments in the debate you would know my answer to this. I wouldn't know what those specific fans were thinking. My case was about society as a whole, not the specific examples you referenced. Anybody who would go out onto the streets and flip cars over because their hockey team lost has greater issues not created by sports. Blaming the rioting on hockey is like putting the blame for the guy who murdered his hole family on his boss who fired him. It would not be the Bosses fault that the family is dead, the blame goes to the crazy guy who could not deal with life.
Posted by Igotnext1986 5 years ago
Igotnext1986
"Grammar" was the wrong word of choice to use. Your comprehension of the word itself and what it means in this debate, HASN'T served you well in this debate.

Here's your comment 9 boxes down:
'In case you didn't realize I am winning this debate, just like the last one. Obviously someone understands my argument even if you don't. The only point I was making is that someone else understands my argument, which should make you realize that I have a point which is not delusional.'
^^ Well someone else also understands my point as well & at that time, there was only 2 votes... so 1 person out of 2 votes DOESN'T prove very much... <<That's what I was referring to when I said "stoop that low." To bring it up THAT early... Also, you've never heard of the police referred to as "the fuzz?" It's pretty common... there's even a movie called "Hot Fuzz." I also did ask Mikee to change his vote because that didn't sit well with me neither. I'll take the points as is, thats ok with me...

BUT here's a question I've asked this before but you STILL never answered:
What internal issues did the fans have, in each of those circumstances, to make them act that way?
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
You don't need to be surprised that I felt compelled to "fetch the fuzz" (what stupid slang), nor is that "stooping low". It is a perfectly normal thing to do on DDO when someone votebombs you (that is why we have a word for it). We all do that for each other to keep voting results honest. It is also coincidental that Mikee votes against me 3 days after I voted against him in his last debate.

You have a serious mental deficiency. I'm starting to wonder if I should be arguing with you or feeling bad for you. Starting with this comment, count down 9 comments ago. I explained what I was talking about by bringing up the point results. Reply to that message without leaving out the part that explains what my point was. You may need to refer back to the reading comprehension link before doing this.

Before I asked: "Even if I didn't understand what the word meant... What the hell would that have to do with grammar???"

You (not surprisingly) never answered this question. Do you know what grammar is?
Posted by Igotnext1986 5 years ago
Igotnext1986
lol... I can't believe you even googled that. Fuzz: slang for 'police'- in this case you fetched someone from friends list to return the favour, in order to hand out 'justice' from Mikees' 'vote bomb.'
^^Even though... I did pm him to change his vote because I do agree, though surprised you felt compelled.

Afraid I was going to take a page out of your book and say, "Look Who's Winning, NOW!!!!' to prove that I'm right? You didn't want to give me that satisfaction but I assure you, I'm not as immature as you are to stoop that low. Especially only after 2 votes... common... 'to prove that someone else agrees with you?' Someone else also agree's with me, so I don't see the point about bragging after 1 out of 2 votes?

"We were NEVER debating whether "obsession" with entertainment was negative."
^^
Now re-read my previous description of what overindulgence stands for. Do you still think we were never debating about obsession or excess in entertainment? Do you still need help figuring out what we we're debating from the very beginning?
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Do you realize what you are making yourself look like? The only reason I still keep answering back at this point is out of sheer amusement that you still think you look smart. Yes, I know what over indulgence means. That is why I pointed out the meaning of the word several times throughout the debate. You should try reading it.

Even if I didn't understand what the word meant... What the hell would that have to do with grammar??? Do you even know what grammar is? And what does "fetch the fuzz" mean? I googled it because I thought your amazing wisdom might teach me something. A video comes up with a dog chasing a fuzzy toy. Why am I not surprised?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Igotnext1986Double_RTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Since Mikee has rescinded his vote, then I will do so as well...
Vote Placed by Mikeee 5 years ago
Mikeee
Igotnext1986Double_RTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: ...
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 5 years ago
Lickdafoot
Igotnext1986Double_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: While I agree with most of pro's points, he used speculation ad ideology to build his case. con effectively refuted pro's points to cast doubt as to whether the entertainment is the culprit. 3/1 for a good effort by pro.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Igotnext1986Double_RTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution is whether fan excesses are so great as to have a negative impact on broader society. I think Pro met the BoP using examples that Con did not counter. Pro's use of "
Vote Placed by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
Igotnext1986Double_RTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: It's pretty obvious Pro never sufficiently fulfilled his BoP, and his rounds steadily degenerated in quality. Pro had poor spelling and grammar.